Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.] Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Council of Agriculture Ministers

Mr. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he intends to take when he assumes the Presidency of European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I expect the Council to play its part in examining the ideas for reducing surpluses and containing the costs of the common agricultural policy put forward in the Commission's document on the 30 May mandate. I hope that the Council will examine the problems over State aids to agriculture as well as discussing commodity prospects over a longer time scale than is possible at the annual price fixing.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the next six months he will do everything possible to promote that stability of the agriculture industry and that stability of employment in the industry that have been the outstanding features of the CAP in recent years?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Stability in agriculture is of immense importance. In addition, British agriculture has made a considerable contribution towards improving productivity and good labour relations. Obviously, I should want that to continue.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Minister looks on State aids with a jaundiced eye, does he believe that the Community should have greater responsibility for expenditure in the less-favoured areas, such as hills and uplands?

Mr. Walker: The Commission exercises certain responsibilities in that direction. Obviously, I hope that the positive policies in that sphere will continue to develop. There is a place for State aids, but if they increase to the extent found in certain countries they become the subject of unfair competition.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues in Europe that many British farmers are sick and tired of the way in which his European colleagues

interpret the rules to their advantage? We play according to the rules. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that they play the game as fairly as we do?

Mr. Walker: I shall convey my hon. Friend's views to my European colleagues. I have conveyed such views to a number of my colleagues on several occasions.

Mr. Freud: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider using countervailing charges against the Dutch under article 46 of the Treaty of Rome? Will he bear in mind the plight of tomato growers in general, and, in particular, that of my tomato growers in Whittlesey who use gas-fired appliances to heat their glass-houses? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we wish him well in his Presidency?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concluding remark. I think that he knows that I have considerable sympathy with those tomato growers in his constituency. We are examining several aspects of energy supplies to the British industry. With regard to using countervailing duties specifically against the Dutch, I should point out that they have not yet announced any detailed proposals about their new subsidies. When they do, the Government will examine them in great detail.

Mr. Mason: From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, do I take it that he is not in favour of funding part of the CAP on a national financing basis, as suggested in the latest budget proposals from the EEC?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. There is a difference in the latest proposals, which were received only this morning. For example, we were in favour of the principle of national funding when we supported the super levy on milk, which in practice would have meant the national financing of future milk surpluses. However, we are against national loans that pervert fair competition between one country and another. Both sides of the House are united about that.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Sproat: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will have a meeting with his counterparts in the European Economic Community to discuss a common fisheries policy.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): At the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, the date for which has not yet been fixed.

Mr. Sproat: Given the unavoidable delay arising from the election of the new French Government, can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that the conservation measures already agreed with our partners will be neither compromised nor abandoned? Does my right hon. Friend agree that even before the common agriculture policy is settled, vital as it is, there is a desperate need for a new marketing regime? What progress does he envisage on that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that those conservation measures already agreed, which largely comprise our national measures, should continue and be enforced while the broader negotiations are proceeding. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have taken a number of measures on marketing in certain areas. Pending the outcome of comprehensive


marketing regulations, we shall continue to press the Commission to take action on such items as imports from third countries.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister able, or willing, to confirm that if we do not achieve a settlement by the end of this year our sister States will be able to fish up to the high water mark? Have any contingency plans been drawn up with the industry to deal with that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman may inadvertently have made a mistake. The current arrangements continue until the end of next year. There is an obligation on the Commission to introduce proposals to replace the present arrangements before the end of next year. The correct thing for the Government to do is to press the Commission, in agreement with the other States, to propose arrangements that are satisfactory to the United Kingdom.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the current arrangements come to an end at the end of next year. Is there any validity in the suggestion that when we get out of our present difficulty we might be able to obtain agreement to an extension of the present period of derogation until some other agreement is reached? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not want to find ourselves forced into an untenable position at the end of next year?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If we find ourselves in circumstances where there is no agreement, we shall have to consider what to do. I hope that we shall be able to improve considerably on the present arrangements.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real problem for the deep-sea fleet and the 1,000 fishermen unemployed in Hull is the question of fishing in third country waters? Does he agree that it is important that we reach an agreement within the Community to allow us to make arrangements with other countries outside it? If we cannot make an arrangement within the Community, should we not make third country agreements and tell our Community partners to "stuff it"?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of third country agreements. The problem about concluding third country agreements that have been available so far is that they have largely been to the benefit of fishing fleets of other European countries, and not to ours. Clearly, we must stand up for the interests of our fleets. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question arises again later.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his main priorities in the reform of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any further progress has been made towards the reform of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Peter Walker: My main priority is to continue the progress already made towards containing the growth of guarantee expenditure.

Mr. Taylor: Is there any logical or commercial reason why the record quantities of cheap subsidised food sent to Russia last year, and the near record quantities of food and vegetables destroyed, should not be offered at comparable prices to, say, retirement pensioners here? In his search for reform, will my right hon. Friend ensure that food is not offered at subsidised cheap prices abroad which are not available at home?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend knows that the Government have constantly opposed the selling of cheap food to the Soviet Union. On his general question, my hon. Friend knows that the doubling of the consumer subsidy on butter, and the sheepmeat regime, with its considerable advantages to consumers, are two ways in which the Government have made considerable progress in achieving the objective that my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that the common agricultural policy must be reformed so that British agriculture can compete on equal terms with its counterparts in Europe? What plan has he in mind to achieve that?

Mr. Walker: Yes, that is why in answer to an earlier question I stated that I hoped that the Council would give careful consideration to the nature of national aids. The areas in which British agriculture is being impeded in its success are those in which, in our judgment, national aids are being offered to other farmers, outside the general principles of the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: In his consideration of the development of the common agriculture policy, will my right hon. Friend take heed primarily of the long-term needs of Britain's agriculture industry? Will he emphasise to those who peddle instant panaceas for the problems of the CAP that proper attention must be paid to the means of effecting changes that are being discussed, if the industry is not to be impossibly stressed in the interim?

Mr. Walker: I think that both sides of the House agree that the nature of agriculture is essentially a long-term business and one in which swift and rapid movements cannot be made without doing considerable economic and social harm. That is why I am anxious that during our Presidency we should consider the long-term trends of the common agriculture policy and make decisions based on the long-term, rather than on the immediate problems.

Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Minister made any estimates of the cost or the tonnage of cereals from the 1981 harvest that will end up in intervention stores in the United Kingdom? Can he think of better ways of handling a commodity such as this, as the United Kingdom is a net importer of cereals?

Mr. Walker: I should never make the mistake of making firm predictions for the 1981 harvest world-wide or of the 1981 demand. Last year's experience showed that the United Kingdom coped well.

Tenant Farmers

Mr. Torney: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce legislation in response to the Country Landowners Association and National Farmers Union proposals on security of tenure for tenant farmers.

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his response to the agreement between the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association on agricultural holdings.

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had in recent weeks with the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association about farm tenancy legislation; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to introduce legislation to implement the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union agreement on agricultural holdings legislation.

Mr. Home Robertson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on Government policy concerning the future of agricultural holdings.

Mr. Peter Walker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I met the presidents of the National Farmers Union and Country Landowners Association earlier this month to discuss the joint proposals of the union and the association for changes in the agricultural holdings legislation.
There was a constructive discussion, in particular on the importance of improving the opportunities for young farmers to enter agriculture. The proposals have been referred to officials of the two Departments and the agriculture industry for further examination.

Mr. Torney: Does the Minister agree that if these proposals were carried into legislative form they would result in two classes of tenant farmers—one with succession rights, and the other with those succession rights expressly excluded?

Mr. Walker: I hope that before hon. Members on either side of the House come to firm conclusions they will realise that a majority of both tenants and landowners agreed on a balance of proposals which they considered were good for the industry. Obviously I do not ask for immediate conclusions to be reached, but anyone interested in agriculture—especially in giving young farmers the opportunity of openings in agriculture—should carefully examine the proposals and come to a solution that is good for the whole industry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the burning need for action to help young people to have opportunities in farming? Is he aware also of the need for a bipartisan approach, to give stability to the future of young people in farming?

Mr. Walker: That is an important aspect of the question. Almost the first people who came to see me to urge that action is taken were from that considerable movement, the Young Farmers Clubs, many of whom would like the opportunities that are not currently available. On the other side, it is correct that existing and future tenants should have a basis on which they are satisfied and agreed. I am anxious that all hon. Members

interested in the future of British agriculture should examine the joint proposals carefully and that we should introduce sensible legislation as a result.

Mr. Strang: Although I accept the need for all parties to approach the agreement constructively, does the Minister agree that the agreement as presently constructed envisages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) said, two classes of tenancy, one protected by Labour legislation, where a son would have a right to succeed a tenant farmer on his death, and the other protected by Conservative legislation, where the family would have no right to succeed the deceased tenant farmer?

Mr. Walker: That is not an accurate description of the position. There is not yet any Conservative legislation. I have not accepted the proposals or said that I will legislate on them immediately. I have asked for a detailed examination of every proposal and we shall look objectively at the results. I have not come to conclusions on the form of any legislation. The hon. Gentleman had responsibility for this matter in the past, and I think that he will agree that we both want to see opportunities provided for young people to enter the industry, and also that we want a sensible basis for existing and future tenants. That is what I am seeking, and I hope that all hon. Members will approach the matter in that spirit. I am not seeking a partisan approach.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I understand that my right hon. Friend does not wish us to come to firm conclusions now. Will he appreciate that in many quarters there is much good will behind the discussions and a hope that we shall be able to get away from the rigidity of the present law, which is not only inhibiting to the potential young tenant farmer, but often inhibiting to landowners, some of whom are large corporate owners who would like to do more to help the young farmer?

Mr. Walker: When we took office we found that firm proposals for legislation had been advocated by representatives of the landowners. The Government took the view that that they would not proceed with legislation if there was no agreement between the NFU and the CLA. Representatives of the majority of tenant farmers came to some form of agreement and I am glad that, as a result of that attitude, an agreement has been reached. Obviously there is good will, because an agreement has been reached, but we must examine the matter in detail and try to come forward with proposals that are acceptable to both sides of the House.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us would support moves to improve the opportunities for, and security of, tenant farmers? Will he accept that it is up to him to bring forward practical proposals, and will he and his hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) refrain from accusing Labour Members of blocking something that we have not seen?

Mr. Walker: I have never accused any Labour Members of doing that. I hope that all those on both sides of the House who are interested in agriculture will carefully examine proposals that have substantial backing within the industry. Of course, it is the Government's responsibility to come forward with legislation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is grass letting a way round the allocation of secure agriculture tenancies?

Mr. Walker: No.

Ware Potatoes

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated yield of ware potatoes in the 1981 season.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The average yield of the past three years is 33·5 tonnes per hectare. Actual yield this year depends on growing conditions between now and harvest.

Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the deep concern felt in Scotland about the penetration of the United Kingdom market by, in particular, Dutch seed potatoes? What proposals has he for dealing with that problem?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that Scottish seed potato producers command about 90 per cent. of the English market, and that, with their reputation for quality, they will meet the challenge of retaining that share of the market.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's characteristic opaque reply about forecasts, is it not a fact that it is expected that yields will be more or less comparable with those of the past two years and that, therefore, comparable problems will arise? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, through the Potato Marketing Board and otherwise, with the arrangements for grading potatoes to ensure that there is a proper market and that market conditions are satisfied?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If my hon. Friend thinks that it is possible to be precise about future yields, his crystal ball must be even more opaque than my own. I am genuinely worried that more than the target acreage has been planted and that growers may not have paid attention to last year's over-production. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken steps with the Potato Marketing Board to authorise an advance buying programme which, we hope, should deal with any surplus that arises in the current year.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Bearing in mind the prominent position of Ulster in the production of seed potatoes, will the right hon. Gentleman modify his previous answer to the extent of acknowledging that there is room for competition between Scottish and Ulster seed potatoes in provision for this country and that 90 per cent. represents an excessive share of that market for Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that Northern Ireland producers have a considerable share of the remaining 10 per cent. of the English market. Those producers have a fine record of marketing, not only in England, but in exports. I am sure that their example will be followed by Scottish producers and others in the United Kingdom.

Grain, Dairy, Beef and Sheep Farming

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of profitability of grain, dairy, beef and sheep farming respectively.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Information was given in the White Paper on the 1981 annual review of agriculture. This year's price settlement, which will add £325 million to farmers' incomes, and other measures taken by the Government will help in improving farm incomes.

Mr. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the profitability of the dairy and livestock industry is low, and that that is not in the interests of the producer or the consumer and is leading to a switch to cereal production? Will he take account of that in forthcoming negotations with his EEC colleagues?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that he will acknowledge that we made it clear in the April price review negotiations that we were in danger of getting livestock and arable products out of balance. As a result, price increases in livestock are slightly better than those in other areas.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the dairy industry potentially threatened by the preliminary European Court decision on the imports of French milk into this country? Is not the doorstep distribution of milk also threatened by that decision? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the distribution of milk in this country is hightly effective and much appreciated by housewives? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that matter?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One would almost think, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that the European Court had taken a decision. I remind him that we are contesting the Court proceedings, because we believe that we have a strong case. I agree that our doorstep delivery is important, not only for the dairy producer, but, in social terms, for British housewives and older people who rely on that excellent daily service. We shall certainly do all that we can to defend it.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the profitability of farmers concerned with these commodities and those who trade with them is seriously at risk because of the strike by civil servants? What plans has he to alleviate that hardship? Will he consider some of the schemes that have been put to him to ease the difficulties?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of the problems, and I hope that the dispute will be ended as soon as possible. My hon. Friend has been in touch with the Ministry, and we are doing our best to help in cases of particular hardship.

Council of Fisheries Ministers

Mr. Peter Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he proposes to take during his term as President of the Council of Fisheries Ministers.

Mr. Peter Walker: My prime objective will be to secure overall agreement on a satisfactory common fisheries policy.

Mr. Fraser: In view of the considerable success that my right hon. Friend has had in the past two years in setting up bilateral talks on fishing matters with other members of the Community, does he think that there will be an opportunity during his Presidency to embark on important bilateral talks on fishing with the new French Government; and, if so, what prospects of success can he hold out?

Mr. Walker: Immediately after the formation of the new French Government, following the presidential elections, I wrote to the new French Minister responsible


for fishing expressing my eagerness to have talks with him on these matters. I hope that now that the National Assembly elections are over and the new Government have been confirmed bilateral talks will quickly take place.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)? Is he aware that there are half a dozen vessels fishing for mackerel at certain times of the year, compared with 146 from my constituency that formerly fished in all waters of the Arctic? The same tale can be told of Fleetwood and other ports. Will the Secretary of State make this an important item in his armoury when he assumes office? We have to get third party agreements. We have to get access to distant waters.

Mr. Walker: We are not alone in Europe in wanting to get third country agreements ratified and agreed as quickly as possible. The more rapidly we reach a conclusion on a common fisheries policy, the better it will be for the whole of Europe, and certainly for Hull.

Mr. McQuarrie: Before my right hon. Friend takes up the Presidency of the Fisheries Council, will he examine the problem of very small fishing vessels, which did not feature in the last financial aid granted by the Government? Will he consider also the question of possible EEC aid for fish processing factories that need to replace machinery that is now obsolete because of conservation measures adopted by the Government?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend, who has a keen interest in these matters, knows that the aid package introduced by the Government was directed to small ships. It was also a package that had been employed previously and had proved of tremendous benefit to the fishing industry. We are constantly examining the position of processors.

Mr. Maclennan: In an earlier answer the Minister of State spoke of the pressure that the Government were putting on the Commission with regard to the disruptive impact on our domestic market of third country imports. What are the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for avoiding this situation in future?

Mr. Walker: This is one area where the Commission is not being successful in seeing that the reference price is observed. If that were done, it would make a terrific difference. We have given the Commission details of cases where it has not been observed. The Commissioner has promised that he will take action to see that it is observed. If that promise is fulfilled the situation will be greatly improved.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter comes up again shortly.

Glasshouse Industry (Holland)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the latest proposals by the Dutch Government to provide a large subsidy to their glasshouse sector.

Mr. Peter Walker: I understand that the Dutch Government have agreed recently to make 270 million guilders available to finance energy saving programmes

carried out by individual glasshouse enterprises and a further 30 million guilders to fund research into energy-saving techniques. Because they have not yet announced the details of their proposals or introduced any legislation to implement them, I am unable to see whether the proposals comply with fair competition rules within the Community. If they do not comply, I shall take the matter immediately to the Commission.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not clear that the Dutch Government are determined to dominate this market in Northern Europe by any means, fair or foul? Will my right hon. Friend consider the imposition of countervailing charges under article 46? Will he not agree, in the longer term, that if our glasshouse sector is to survive, it is time for a fundamental reappraisal of energy sources, conversion and perhaps also of location of the industry? Will he pay particular attention to waste heat from nuclear power stations?

Mr. Walker: I should like to deal with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, which is of considerable importance. We are having talks with the National Coal Board to see what can be done in respect of the substantial glasshouse industry in the Yorkshire area. We wish to see whether contracts and perhaps improvements in capital grants can be made to enable coal to be used for the glasshouse industry in the area on an economic and sensible basis.
My hon. Friend will know that some power stations have supplied heating for the glasshouse industry. We are examining a range of other methods. I should say, in fairness to the Dutch Government, that they have recently increased gas prices substantially. These proposals may well compensate for that increase. If that is the case, I believe the action to be wrong. We would have to consider what action can be taken by the Commission or ourselves. Until seeing the detailed proposals, I think my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot take any action.

Mr. Heffer: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great tragedies of Britain's entry into the Common Market is that it has meant that the glasshouse sector is almost eliminated, especially in the Lea valley which, at one time, produced the best tomatoes in the world? Is he aware that Lea valley tomatoes have practically gone out of existence due to our entry into the Common Market? Should we not put the interests of our people first rather than being tied by Common Market competitive rules that operate against the interests of Britain?

Mr. Walker: Prices for tomatoes in this market throughout most of last season were substantially above prices the year before. Although there was an early drop in prices this year, prices in the last two weeks have again been well above those of last year. A section of the British tomato growing industry has been doing pretty well during the last two years.

Mr. John Wells: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that our own experiments in heat saving at the Exel nurseries opened two days ago, which should have been opened by a Minister from the Department of Energy—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Why did that not happen?

Mr. Wells: Because he went to a film. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this experiment is not in contravention of the EEC regulation? We cannot dig at the Dutch if we are cheating.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that there is no contravention. No subsidy is involved. I recently visited my hon. Friend's constituency and met some of the growers. I should like to congratulate the Kent growers on their remarkable success in the marketing of soft fruit so far this year and on the terrific improvement that has taken place in their marketing techniques.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intervene to defend the hon. Gentleman. He has a right to be heard.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is accustomed to giving silence, and to receiving it. Question Time is passing by.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister explain to what extent the Chicago-Friedman theory operates in respect of the common agricultural policy with specific reference to the glasshouse industry? Who gets most satisfaction from the operation of these market forces? Is it the Minister himself, or is it the Prime Minister?

Mr. Walker: Having heard the question, I understand the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to put it.

Mr. Skinner: Answer it.

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly draw the attention of the professor who has been mentioned to the glasshouse industry's problems.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not the damage that our industry, especially the glasshouse industry, so often suffers, due to the fact that the Commission takes so long to act after my right hon. Friend makes a complaint? Is not the correct response, therefore, for my right hon. Friend immediately to put on countervailing duties so that it takes the Commission the same time to deal with complaints against them as it does to take action against the measures which they countervail?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I think, however, that it is important for British agriculture and horticulture not to enter a war of countervailing duties, which would cause considerable damage to our trade with Europe as well as in the other direction. If a legal foundation exists for them and it is proper to use them as an aspect of our legal rights, I would not hesitate to do so. I shall certainly not use such rights irresponsibly.

Mr. Mark Hughes: If the survival of not only the tomato section of our glasshouse industry but the carnation and lettuce sections and all the others are to be put at risk by the action of our competitors and confreres in Europe, surely the Government must give themselves the power to take the necessary countervailing action.

Mr. Walker: It is because the Government took the attitude that they would not allow the industry to disappear because of unfair competition that they recently

announced the maximum possible aid for horticulture. The industry knows that it has the Government's support and that it will continue to have it.

Less Favoured Areas

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of aids to less favoured areas in England in 1981–82.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Supply Estimates 1981–82 provide £10,000 for forage groups and £14,922,000 for livestock allowances in less favoured areas in England, but the rates of livestock allowances for January 1982 will be reviewed this autumn.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that marginal land could make a major contribution to increased farm productivity? Is he aware that there is considerable disquiet at the possible closure of the Great House experimental husbandry farm at Helmshore in Rossendale, Lancashire? That farm is a valuable aid to farm development in the North-West, especially to grassland management, which is useful for stock production. Will he consider this issue seriously?

Mr. Walker: No decision has been taken on the Great House farm. The Government and my Department review the manner in which we use our available resources for research and development. I can assure my hon. Friend that whatever decisions are taken will be in the best interests of farming and of ensuring that the quality of advice that is given to hill farmers and marginal land farmers continues at the high level that they have enjoyed in the past.

Mr. Spriggs: When the right hon. Gentleman takes over the Presidency will he investigate why the fishing vessel owners of Fleetwood can no longer send their vessels to sea because when they land their fish they make a severe loss? How do the losses affect the wages of the deck hands who work on the fishing vessels?

Mr. Walker: We have had many talks with the Fleetwood owners, who benefited very much from the aid that we announced recently. Over the past year that aid has been more substantial than the aid given in recent years. I am aware of the importance of Fleetwood. We shall keep in close contact with all those whose occupations are concerned with the fishing industry at Fleetwood.

Sir Marcus Kimball: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is now a growing body of opinion in the countryside that these payments should be linked to acreage rather than headage?

Mr. Walker: There is always a dispute over the manner in which an allowance should be paid. However, to proceed on an acreage basis would create considerable perversions. Aid would be poured into areas where the yields and results would be extremely limited. I think that the majority agree with the current principle.

Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a strong case for creating an additional zone of assistance for marginal farmers over and above that of the less favoured areas? As it is two years since the Government inherited the previous Labour Government's study of the problems in marginal farming areas, will he say when the Government will make a policy statement?

Mr. Walker: I am shocked by the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. No survey was undertaken of marginal land by the previous Labour Government. Had I proceeded along the lines that were being followed by that Government, it would have taken four years to complete such a survey. I am glad to say that we have speeded up the process and that the survey will be completed by the autumn.

Dairy Farmers (Non-Marketing and Conversion Payments)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the non-marketing and conversion payments to those farmers who give up dairying are to be stopped.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The non-marketing section of the scheme closed to new applicants on 16 September 1980 and the conversion section on 5 April 1981. As premiums may be paid over a period of up to five years, actual payments to producers under the scheme will come to an end in 1985–86.

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the payments have not been especially effective in containing the surplus? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be making alternative suggestions to contain the milk surplus when he is President of the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that the scheme was not especially effective. It was taken up mainly by those who appeared to be considering leaving dairying for other reasons. For that reason we supported the closure of both the schemes. We shall consider any means that will be effective to contain the surplus created by the dairy industry generally in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am giving a dinner for the Vice-President of the United States.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend please tell the Vice-President that there is both concern and anger in the House and in the country that money from the United States is still reaching the IRA? Will she invite the Vice-President to find some way of ensuring, in the light of ill-informed and biased reports that the American people receive from their media, that the true position is put across to the people, perhaps including an explanation that the people of Northern Ireland are just as entitled to choose their own constitutional arrangements without intimidation as, for example, are the people of Puerto Rico?

The Prime Minister: I think that the first thing that I will say to Vice-President Bush is how grateful we are for the firm stand that the United States Government have

taken over Northern Ireland matters. They have made it quite clear that Northern Ireland matters are matters for the United Kingdom. I think that we should show our appreciation of that fact.
Of course, I share my hon. Friend's concern that money from the United States should be finding its way to the PIRA. All those who contribute to NORAID fully recognise its connection with the PIRA, which was established by a recent court case. Indeed, by virtue of a recent court case NORAID has had to be registered as an agent of the IRA. I hope that that will be understood.
We are constantly trying to find effective ways of getting our message and our case across to the people of the United States. We think that we have got it across to both Government and responsible commentators, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we must find every possible way of getting the message across and showing everything that is being done.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady find time today—

Mr. Marlow: Let us have a joke.

Mr. Foot: —to meet the representatives of the footwear industry who are in London today? They represent an important industry which is in a near-desperate situation. It is an important industry that is threatened partly by the Government's failure to act and partly by the Government's actions. Will the right hon. Lady undertake to meet its representatives?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the answer must be "No". I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the industry has grave problems. Certain voluntary arrangements are conducted on a bilateral basis with the countries concerned which put so many imports into this country. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is much concerned about this. I am sure that he will see the representatives if they are here.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady give full consideration to their proposals for controlling imports and take urgent action on the matter?

The Prime Minister: I cannot go further than I have. I know that my right hon. Friend is very concerned. We have a series of bilateral arrangements. I am sure that he will listen to any proposals that they have to make and give them urgent consideration.

Mr. Rippon: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no consideration will be given today or in the immediate future to any reductions in the BBC's overseas services, which I am sure she will agree are an essential part of British foreign policy?

The Prime Minister: I think that a question is being answered today about BBC external services. We are anxious to switch expenditure from current to capital account. In the last two years some expenditure has been switched the other way. In our view, it is better to have some 33 language services properly heard than to have 40 language services inadequately heard.

Mr. David Steel: In the Prime Minister's continuing review of the Government's economic policy, will she heed the speech that her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made in America earlier


this week, when he said that the Government's political and economic approach should not be based on the doctrines of any one group of economists?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend was referring to the fact that none of us should ever listen exclusively to the Keynesian school of economists. The report that I read, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will confirm, said:
Mr. Peter Walker, the Minister of Agriculture, yesterday gave an optimistic account of the economic achievements of the Thatcher Government".
I am delighted.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend continue to press the need for industry to improve its productivity, and will she welcome the fact that in the 12 months to the first quarter of 1981, output per man hour increased by 2½ per cent., and since January unit labour costs, in comparison with those of our main competitors, have fallen by 6 per cent?

The Prime Minister: It is absolutely vital that British industry should compete, and to that end we must watch wage increases during the next round. I confirm that there have been great advances in output per man hour. In January this year, output per man reached an all-time record, and we should warmly congratulate everyone involved—management and work force alike.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider again the question that I put to her in the debate yesterday, to the effect that of those under 25, no fewer than 917,000 are unemployed, and that of males over 30 who should be employed, have been unemployed for nearly one year? No other country in Europe or in the world would accept that level of unemployment. Will the Prime Minister tell us now, not later, what she intends to do about it?

The Prime Minister: It is as well that I did not go any further than I did in answering the hon. Gentleman last night, because the figures that he asks for are not compiled. The figures for the average length of unemployment are not and never have been available.

Mr. Robinson: I have them.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but I would not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. I shall give him the figures that we have, which I think are the real figures about which he is concerned. The figure for those who have been unemployed for longer than a year is now just over half a million—515,913. Of course, we are concerned to do something about unemployment, but the question that we should really ask ourselves is why more people in this country do not buy British goods—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are very touchy and tetchy again today—and why so many constituents of Labour Members—and, indeed, of some Conservative Members—prefer to use their pay packets to buy foreign goods.

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Lady is leaning on a foreign Dispatch Box.

The Prime Minister: I must have made a good point there, as Labour Members are so touchy.

Mr. Henderson: Is not my right hon. Friend somewhat nauseated at the way in which certain elements in the Civil Service trade unions are positively gloating at the prospect of giving added misery to those sections of the community that the House and the nation have approved as requiring special help? Does she accept that, if the Civil Service unions cause the nation great expense, that fact should be taken into account in future wage settlements?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that a large number of people are suffering from the Civil Service strike. Nevertheless, the great majority of civil servants are loyally continuing to carry out their jobs. That is something that we must bear in mind at the same time. I hope that those who are on strike realise the damage that they are doing to the very people from whom they are seeking higher payments. I hope that they will soon end the strike and return to duty.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister ponder the fact that her Government's lack of initiative over youth unemployment causes much anxiety? She may talk about people buying British, but in West Yorkshire and many other constituencies, the British Movement is campaigning and recruiting among school leavers and school unemployed. Does she accept that her Government will be responsible for this problem?

The Prime Minister: This Government are very, very concerned about the numbers of young people who are unemployed. We are doing everything that we can to make it easier for them to stay in education or training or to have some work experience with a company, either in industry or commerce, or with a public authority. At present, we provide some 440,000 places under the youth opportunities programme. That may not be quite enough. We have received a letter from the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission asking for a number of things, including the power to increase the number of places. We shall consider the matter urgently and sympathetically.

Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the reluctance of local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative, to consider putting their functions and services out to private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I heard my hon. Friend make that point in his excellent speech yesterday. I agree with him that it would be far better if more local authorities put some of their services out to private companies. I agree that it would often be cheaper, as has happened in Southend, where the services are cheaper and where the rates have been reduced by 1p in the pound. I hope that more authorities will follow the example of Southend.

Mr. Litherland: Will the Prime Minister find time in the near future to intervene in the dispute in Laurence Scott Electromotors (Manchester) Ltd, where workers and constituents of mine are staging a sit-in to preserve their jobs? Will she try, where local Members of Parliament


have failed, to open a dialogue with the management which, judging by its letters and actions, is the epitome of the unacceptable face of capitalism?

The Prime Minister: I must say "No" to the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect. It is not for me to settle disputes, but for those who are party to them to come to a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Hill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hill: Would my right hon. Friend reflect and agree that the constant calls for protectionism and import controls are simply the expression of stark fear on the part of those who have little faith in the traditional ability of the United Kingdom to export, as it has done throughout the generations? Does she not agree that protectionism cannot safeguard our standard of living and will increase unemployment?

The Prime Minister: Apart from one or two industries, including textiles, footwear and cars, where we have voluntary or negotiated arrangements for import controls,

I agree with my hon. Friend that general import controls would be highly damaging to a number of jobs in this country, because there are a tremendous number of jobs in exports, and we should do nothing to harm their chances of success. Moreover, general import controls considerably put up the cost of living and do nothing to enhance the competitiveness of our industries, which would shelter behind a wall of protectionism.

Mr. Heffer: As the Prime Minister said that people in Britain should buy British, will she undertake to ensure that a survey is carried out among Conservative Members, including Ministers, to find out how many of them have British and not foreign cars, and how many of their relatives have foreign, not British, cars?

The Prime Minister: I shall carry out no such survey. It is a matter for hon. Members themselves. If we inquire why more people do not buy British, we shall find that in some cases it is because overseas goods are better value. We then get straight back to the competitiveness, value and service of British industry. [Interruption.] However much Opposition Members yowl and scowl, in the end we must have competitive British industry producing the sort of goods that we want to buy.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Debate on the problems of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Insurance Companies Bill.
Motion on European Community Document 7583/80 on proprietary medicinal products.
TUESDAY 30 JUNE—Supply [24th Allotted Day] (First Part): Debate on the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Remaining stages of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings of the Belize Bill.
Motion on the Supplementary Benefit (Requirement and Resources) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY I JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Debate on the car industry, on an Opposition motion.
Motions on the following orders: London Docklands Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) and (Amendment), Vesting of Land (Port of London Authority) and (Greater London Council).
THURSDAY 2 JULY—Motions on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order and on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
FRIDAY 3 JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day] (Second Part): Debate on the disabled, with special reference to the International Year of Disabled People.
MONDAY 6 JULY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords].

[Debate on European document relating to proprietary medicinal products: The relevant report of the European Legislation Committee is the 16th Report 1980–81 H/C 32-xvi, para. 1].

Mr. Foot: I wish to put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman. First, will he make arrangements for the motions on Northern Ireland on Thursday to be amendable because we wish to put our view in either an amendment or a motion? I hope that that will be the way in which the business comes forward. Secondly, on Tuesday's business on the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he say whether he has had discussions with the Patronage Secretary about allowing a free vote? That would be generally accepted by the House. Thirdly, has he had an opportunity to reflect on the question I put to him last week about the debates on the Brandt report?
There are three major summit meetings scheduled for this year—the economic summit in Ottawa in July, the Commonwealth conference in Melbourne in September, and the Mexico summit in October. Neither the House nor the country has any idea of the Government's attitude towards those important matters. Will the Government provide a day, before the Summer Recess, to debate those matters, and will the Government make a statement to the House?

Mr. Pym: On the right hon. Gentleman's first question, we can arrange the motions in the way that he requested. On his second question, I have not yet consulted my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is entirely capable of defending himself. On the third question, I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I said last week. In saying that, I am not in any way suggesting that it is not an important subject. There were three debates on the topic last year, including one on a Government day, and it also formed part of a debate in March this year. I appreciate the importance of the subject, but at the moment I cannot find Government time in the near future. I appreciate the significance of the request.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the statement that we are all eagerly awaiting, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the House will have an early opportunity to debate defence?

Mr. Pym: Yes, Sir. It is my intention to arrange a debate for Tuesday 7 July.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that Dr. Dracan Clift, a Home Office forensic scientist, gave crucial evidence at the trial of Mr. John Preece of Stoke-on-Trent which led to his conviction for murder? The Court of Appeal decided that that evidence had been discredited and the sentence was quashed. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for the Home Secretary to make a statement about that case and agree to reopen all the cases in which Dr. Clift has given evidence? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case to which I referred is not the first case in which Dr. Clift's evidence has been discredited and the convictions following that evidence quashed?

Mr. Pym: I doubt whether a statement would be appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's request. I shall consult him. I could not be sure that a statement would be an appropriate step.

Mr. John Page: Is my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I am that my Bill on smaller businesses was not reached on Friday? Will it be possible for him to find time shortly to give half a day to that important subject?

Mr. Pym: I regret that I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request. I am sad that his Bill was not reached.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House recall that in November 1979 a motion was passed in the House to the effect that there should be no further cuts in expenditure on the BBC overseas services? Is he aware that evidence on the subject has been given in public, by both the BBC and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is in the process of drawing up a report? In view of those facts, does he agree that any Government statement on that matter should be made in the House and not by other means?

Mr. Pym: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, a question on that matter is being asked today. I shall have to check the facts to be sure that I am right, but I believe that, far from expenditure being cut, more money will be spent.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: When arranging the business of the House, will my right hon. Friend continue to give high priority to the consideration of the important questions of unemployment and the management of the economy so that, as was demonstrated with such clarity yesterday, the country can be continually reminded that from no part of the House has there been offered any sensible alternative to the Government's economic policies?

Mr. Pym: We have given adequate time, and an appropriate amount of time, to discussing the important matter of unemployment. No doubt other opportunities will arise.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not time that the Leader of the House arranged a debate on the scandalous treatment being meted out by the Government to the nurses and ambulancemen? Have not the Government forced them to accept a real wage cut? Were not the Tory Government elected on a prospectus of not interfering with free collective bargaining? Should they not take into account the fact that other workers, such as the police, have been given 21 per cent. by the Government? How does that fit in with the view of the new Hexham school of economics that the Government have spent more, borrowed more and been less able to count that money than any other Government in history?

Mr. Pym: Even if I thought that that was an appropriate subject for debate, I could not find time for it next week. There are other ways and other opportunities available to the hon. Gentleman of which, no doubt, he will take advantage.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: As the cuts in the BBC external services have been announced by way of a written answer, and in view of the widespread concern about this matter, would it not be right for my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate on the whole subject, because substantial cuts are planned in individual countries' services?

Mr. Pym: I do not think that I have Government time available for that purpose. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the purpose, of the change is to spend more, to invest more, and to have a higher degree of audibility. That is an appropriate matter for the House to debate, but my hon. Friend may have to find some other way of raising the matter.

Mr. George Foulkes: Can the Leader of House give an assurance, particularly to Scottish Members with children of school age, that the House will be in recess by the beginning of August, even if that means that it must meet on Wednesday 29 July, irrespective of any other event that may happen to be taking place on that day?

Mr. Pym: If we all talked a little less we might be able to achieve that.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Would it be a good idea for my right hon. Friend to arrange an early debate on the important question of trade union immunities, bearing in mind that the closing date for representations on the Government's Green Paper is 30 June?

Mr. Pym: I believe that we must wait for that time. The Government will then give consideration to that extremely important subject. I doubt whether there will be

time for that subject before the House rises for the Summer Recess. In due course there will be plenty of opportunities for it to be debated.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: May I take the Leader of the House back to yesterday's debate on unemployment, picking up a question that was asked by one of his hon. Friends? Does he appreciate that, whilst I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, in congratulating the Government on providing one day for a debate on unemployment, one day is totally inadequate? That is shown by the fact that only six speeches were allowed from the major Opposition party and 18 contributions were made from the Back Benches. We are asking for a further debate next month and every other month on unemployment figures, but will the Government seriously consider giving more time—at least two days—to debate this vitally important subject of unemployment?

Mr. Pym: The Government have been forthcoming on this matter. I have been forthcoming since I have been Leader of the House, because we have had two days on that subject in Government time. The Opposition have provided time, on a regional basis, on several other occasions. Therefore, I believe that it can be said that this important matter has had a full degree of debate. There will be further opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a limit to the amount of time that any Government or Opposition can make available. We shall do the best we can.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that between now and the Summer Recess it will not be convenient to receive any fresh legislation, whether emanating from overseas or not?

Mr. Pym: It would be rash of me to say "No", although I have none in mind at present.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a debate at an early date on the urgent need for constitutional reform?

Mr. Pym: Not in Government time before the recess.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the Prime Minister's sad answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), to the effect that about seven language broadcasts are to be cancelled to the effect by the BBC, does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that this is far too important a matter to be left to a written answer? In view of the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard that as a massive false economy, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that we should at least have an opportunity to debate it?

Mr. Pym: In view of statements that we have had, the one that we shall have today, and others that will come, I believe that a written answer is correct. If the matter is to be debated—it is an appropriate subject for debate—some other way must be found. It is a question of working out what is the best use of the money allocated for that purpose. We shall spend more, there is an audibility problem, and the money will be spent to make sure that, in a given number of languages, the service is heard much better in the countries towards which it is directed. That matter is appropriate for debate. I do not believe that an oral statement would provide the answer or the conditions to raise other points that the hon and learned Gentleman wants discussed.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: As Thursday's business is presumably not appropriate for this purpose, can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the decision, just announced, to give Harland and Wolff another £46 million from the taxpayers whom we represent, on top of the £300 million that has gone before, apparently coupled with the pledge to continue to do so for at least another five years? Can we have an urgent debate on that matter before any further money is committed?

Mr. Pym: That is an appropriate matter for Supply. While acknowledging the appropriateness of that subject and the importance of that allocation of money, I do not believe that there will be an opportunity in Government time. Unfortunately, I cannot give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he would wish.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In view of the fact that there is no time for a debate on the Brandt report, will the Leader of the House give consideration to having a statement some time before the recess on the progress made by Government Departments on implementing it? As the Prime Minister may discuss with the Vice-President of the United States the use of resources in that regard tonight, and as the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations will have made some rules, will it not be possible for a statement on progress to be made, not on platitudes but on resources?

Mr. Pym: I am prepared to give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further than he did in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) and say that there is no question of the House dealing with any Canadian legislation before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Pym: It would be rash of me to say "No" to any legislation, from whatever source. I do not have it in mind at the moment.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 463, which deals with the recent Select Committee's report on the Vagrancy Act, and in particular with the offences of begging, sleeping rough and being found on enclosed premises.
[That this House notes the Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee concerning Vagrancy Offences (H.C. 271); further notes that the Committee was divided on the timing of the repeal of the offences of sleeping rough, begging, and being found on enclosed premises under the Vagrancy Act 1824; and urges the Government to initiate an immediate debate on that Report.]
Will he arrange for an early debate on that report?

Mr. Pym: The Government must make their response and then we must consider, when days are available, which Select Committee's reports and which responses should be debated. The hon. Gentleman has raised one candidate. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. John Farr: Has my right hon. Friend received any communication from our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saying that he will shortly introduce a short three or four-clause Bill dealing with replica firearms—a Bill that, with the acclamation of the House, could be on the statute book before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), is the Leader of the House aware that there is a precedent, in that a previous Labour Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement at the Dispatch Box following the release of Paddy Meehan after it was found that he had been wrongfully convicted for murder? Would it not be more appropriate if the Solicitor-General for Scotland made a statement on the Preece case? I understand that before he came to the House the Solicitor-General was supposedly responsible for defending those two men, who might have been dead today had the hanging brigade, including the Solicitor-General, had its way?

Mr. Pym: I take note of that and I shall consider it. I have nothing to add to what I said to the right hon. Gentleman earlier.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cutting of seven or eight foreign broadcasts of the BBC is important, not least in terms of defence, because propaganda is part of the battle? Will he therefore arrange that the House takes that fact fully into consideration, has an opportunity to debate it, and does not have to depend upon a written answer?

Mr. Pym: Nothing that I have said in any way lessens the importance that we attach to the BBC external services. I believe that a written answer on what we have decided is correct and I hope that an opportunity for debate can be found. I cannot see an opportunity in Government time in the near future. If I did not say that, I might mislead the House.

Mr. Christopher Price: When will the House next have an opportunity to debate the reports of the Public Accounts Committee? Does not the Leader of the House believe that it is important that his successor at the Ministry of Defence should defend, at the Dispatch Box, the allegations that International Military Services—a company of which the Secretary of State for Defence owns all but one of the shares—has allowed the payment of nearly £½ million into a Swiss bank account with no guarantee that that money is not being used for bribery? When can we have a debate so that the matter can be thrashed out on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Pym: Not next week, Sir.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon, Friend aware of the tragic circumstamces prevailing in dockland, certainly in the port of Southampton at the moment? Is he further aware of the need for a debate on the review of the national dock labour scheme and the fact that it has been a considerable time since the Jones-Aldington agreement was made? Surely, for the benefit of the export and import circumstances of this country, a debate on the entire ports industry would be invaluable.

Mr. Pym: I am sure that it would, but I am afraid that I cannot see an opportunity in the near future.

Mr. John Silkin: Does the Leader of the House recall that he promised to consider a debate on the Royal Commission on criminal procedure report? Is he now in a position to give us a date?

Mr. Pym: Not yet, Sir.

Defence Programme

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Government have reviewed the defence programme, and a full account of our conclusions is contained in a White Paper, which will be available shortly in the Vote Office.
The Government intend to honour the NATO aim of 3 per cent. real growth in defence expenditure, and have, exceptionally, taken a firm decision now to plan to implement the increase until 1985–86, a full four years forward and two years beyond the published plans for public spending generally. This may mean that defence absorbs an even greater share of our gross domestic product, and, while it will be necessary to curb several of our forward plans and aspirations, the additional funding should enable us to enhance our front-line capability above its present level in very many areas.
The House knows of our basic problems, which are not unique to Britain. We have a defence programme which is unbalanced and over-extended. Last year, we suffered from severe cash problems, and similar difficulties are already emerging in the current year.
We cannot go on like this. We have no choice in the longer term but to move towards a better balance between the various components of our effort—front-line numbers, quantity and quality in equipment, and military and civilian support. We must determine this balance in terms of real defence capability rather than as the outcome of a debilitating argument over each Service's budgetary share.
We have looked first at the defence of the United Kingdom itself, especially in its role as a crucial reinforcement base for NATO. For some time we have felt the need to give greater emphasis to our reserve forces. For the Territorial Army, whose readiness and efficiency were vividly shown in Exercise Crusader, my intention is that there will be a progressive increase in numbers of some 16,000 men and women, and there will also be an increase in training days from 38 to 42 a year. We will order new minesweepers for the Royal Naval Reserve as soon as resources permit, and we will expand the use of Royal Air Force Regiment reserves in airfield protection.
In United Kingdom air defence—a priority requirement—we will sustain all the programmes already in hand, including the Nimrod early warning system and the doubling of modern air-to-air missile stocks. As a new enhancement, we will provide Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for a further 36 of our Hawk aircraft, making 72 Hawks in all available to supplement our fighter force; we will run on two Phantom squadrons, instead of phasing them out as had been earlier planned, when the air defence version of Tornado comes in; we will examine the possibility of switching 20 Tornados to the air defence rather than the strike version; and we will substantially increase the VC10 tanker fleet, which multiplies our fighter force by prolonging patrol time and range. Around our coasts, we will increase our capability to counter enemy mining, and we have set aside funds for enhancing our defensive mining capacity to help secure our ports and maritime routes.
I turn next to the major land/air contribution on the Continent of Europe. BAOR's manpower, which is above our Brussels Treaty commitment of 55,000 men, will

return to that level, but we will retain in Germany our full present combat fighting strength of eight brigades and our responsibility for the forward defence of a vital 65 km of the central front.
We intend, however, to withdraw from Germany one divisional headquarters and other supporting staff, with a consequent reduction in the number of locally employed civilians, and this, together with other necessary economies, will enable us to move over the next five years towards a slightly smaller Regular Army of 135,000 trained men—7,000 fewer than at present, but partly balanced by the increase in the Territorial Army.
Suggestions have been made, I know, that we should go for a much greater reduction in our troops in Germany, but, quite apart from the fact that there is no one else to perform our task of defending 65 km of the central front, it would be much more expensive to bring the troops home, because we simply could not house or train them here without a massive new infrastructure programme. Only disbandment would relieve our budgetary pressures, and we cannot prudently cut our Army below a certain minimum level.
However, the small reduction in Regular Army manpower that I propose will help us to afford, as is our intention, the very wide range of re-equipment projects now envisaged for BAOR. The scale or timing of some of the projects will be modified, partly to restrain costs but mainly to provide for a further increase in war stocks and ammunition, to improve the combat endurance—the staying power—of 1st British Corps, which will be substantially enhanced. We plan, for instance, to increase further the buy of Milan anti-tank missiles.
The Challenger tank will equip four armoured regiments, new night sights for missile systems and tanks will be introduced, and improvements will be made both to the present Chieftains and, in due course, to Challenger. We will bring into service the 2nd Chinook helicopter squadron to enhance Army logistic support and mobility. We shall introduce the tracked version of the Rapier missile system and the TOW anti-tank missile launched from Lynx helicopters.
I am glad to announce that, subject to final negotiations, we should shortly be signing in Washington an agreement with the United States Government for the joint manufacture with the United States of the AV8II, the advanced Harrier. This has turned out to be an agile and effective aircraft, with a substantial weapon-carrying ability, and we plan to order 60 aircraft for close all. support. Within the total Anglo-American programme of some 400 aircraft, we are looking for a 40 per cent. share for British Aerospace and a 75 per cent. share for Rolls-Royce on the engine. There should be something like £1 billion work for British industry, the bulk of it for export to the United States.
I have decided that we cannot afford early replacement of the Jaguar, although possibilities remain open for new combat aircraft in the longer term, perhaps through international collaboration. On the other hand, we must exploit our investment in Tornado—some £10,000 million at current prices. We will continue with the JP233 system for neutralising enemy airfields, and we shall seek also to acquire new weapons to equip Tornado in an anti-armour role and for suppressing enemy air defences.
At sea, the Royal Navy will continue with the key task of providing a strategic nuclear force by the modernisation of the Polaris force with the Trident system. We have


maintained one Polaris boat on station continuously for the past 12 years. One Trident submarine, invulnerable to any pre-emptive strike, will carry up to 128 independently-targeted warheads, which can hold at risk targets over a vast area of the Soviet Union. No enhancement of our conventional forces could possibly prove of equal deterrent value. In a world where nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented, it is the United Kingdom's surest way of preserving peace.
However, we must also keep strong the three conventional elements of power at sea. In maritime air, in addition to present plans, we will fit a further three Nimrods, making 34 in all, to the full mark II equipment standard, which is as great a leap in technology over the mark I Nimrod as the mark I was over the Shackleton. Armed with the Sting Ray torpedo, the mark II will have great striking power against submarines. We will proceed with a new stand-off anti-ship missile to be delivered by Buccaneers—which we will keep on for this task—or by Tornado. Subject to the satisfactory completion of contract negotiations, we intend to acquire British Aerospace's Sea Eagle anti-ship missile.
We shall increase our fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines, newly equipped with Sub-Harpoon, from the present 12 to 17. I have today confirmed the order with Vickers at Barrow of another submarine at a cost of £177 million. We shall also proceed as fast as possible with a new and more effective class to replace our present ageing diesel-powered submarines. These should also have a market overseas. We shall acquire a new heavyweight torpedo for all our boats, and are considering alternative British and American designs for this. Overall our maritime air and submarine capability will be much enhanced.
As regards surface ships, we shall go ahead with all the very large orders—20 new warships to a value, with their weapons, of about £2,000 million—already in hand in British shipyards, and shall be placing an order for a further type 22 anti-submarine frigate, at a cost of £125 million, which will sustain work at Yarrows on the Clyde. We are placing the order for five patrol craft with Hall Russell of Aberdeen for service in Hong Kong.
But I believe we must make changes here in a number of ways. First, if we want to build a reasonable number of new ships in the future, we must devise much cheaper and simpler designs than the type 22 frigate. We must accelerate urgently—and I have provided funds in the programme for this—a new type of anti-submarine frigate, the type 23, built with an eye to export as well as Royal Navy needs, for we have not sold a major British warship of Royal Navy design for over a decade. I intend to pursue as well the possibility of still more cost-effective, smaller ships than the type 23.
Secondly, we can maintain our surface fleet at its present full strength only through a continuous programme of refits and major mid-life modernisations of older ships, requiring a huge and costly dockyard infrastructure. Typically, it can now cost up to £70 million to modernise an old Leander frigate, which is actually more than our target cost for the new type 23 frigate.
If we are to be able to build new ships in our shipyards and fulfil other priority defence tasks, we simply cannot afford to sustain such a policy of refit and modernisation—or, for that matter, maritime air defence

at the present level, where the planned forward investment in major equipment for the air defence of warships at sea has been about double that for the air defence of the United Kingdom itself.
It is for this reason that, while we shall complete the new carrier "Ark Royal", we intend to keep in service in the longer term only two of the ships of this class, with their heavy demands on supporting anti-submarine and air defence escorts. The older carrier "Hermes" will be phased out as soon as the second of the new carriers is in operation.
Overall, we shall try to hold the destroyer and frigate force declared to NATO at around 50 ships compared with 59 ships at present. This will be achieved by disposing early of older and more manpower-intensive ships—for example, from the County, Rothesay and Leander classes—and timing their withdrawal so far as possible to avoid major refit or modernisation. We shall place some of these ships, without further modernisation, in the standby squadron, where they will still be available, though at longer notice, as part of our force declaration to NATO. There will be a consequential reduction of Royal Fleet auxiliaries.
On present estimates, the reduction in target numbers of the Royal Navy will be between 8,000 and 10,000 men by the end of 1986, rather more than the reductions of 7,000 in the Army. We shall maintain the three Royal Marine commandos, since we place great value on their unique capability, but we shall dispose of the two specialist amphibious ships rather earlier than planned.
In consultation with the United States Secretary for Defence about these changes, I have indicated our wish to play an enhanced role, alongside our allies, outside the boundaries of the NATO area. We envisage resuming the deployment of naval task groups—centred sometimes around a carrier, sometimes around destroyers or frigates—for substantial periods on visits and exercises out of area. We have made specific provision in our programme for the extra costs of such deployment. We are continuing with our plans designating an Army field command to plan out-of-area contingency tasks; for providing an extra stockpile of equipment and giving our Hercules aircraft the equipment needed for a co-ordinated assault by parachute troops.
As regards support, the change in policy on refits which I have described earlier will mean that we cannot justify keeping a dockyard organisation of its present size. I regret to inform the House that the base and dockyard in Chatham will have to close in 1984. Work at Portsmouth dockyard will contract very severely, though the naval base will be retained, and consideration will be given to alternative ways of fulfilling the Government's obligation to support the economy of Gibraltar if it is decided that the dockyard work there cannot be kept up indefinitely. We shall consult closely the Gibraltar Government about how best to deal with the situation.
Much more naval training will take place at sea, and there will be a reduction in shore-based naval establishments, stores and fuel depots. Overall civilian numbers in the Ministry of Defence will fall by between 15,000 and 20,000 as a result of our measures. Our total work force will in due course be significantly below 200,000. Redundancies will, I am afraid, be inescapable.
I have described to the House the main thrust of what we propose and the substantial enhancement of our front-line capability in very many areas, but with a major reduction in the supporting infrastructure of defence.
I am asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to find time, as soon as possible, for a debate on all these issues. At that time I shall be able to explain more fully the background to my proposals.
In conclusion, the Government have, in accordance with their undertakings to the country, decided to provide the increased resources our defence demands by increasing spending by 3 per cent. in real terms for the next four years, and we have decided also to apply the extra funding in a revised programme which will enhance the combat endurance and the hitting power of our front-line Forces in the decade to come.

Mr. Brynmor John: The Secretary of State made a statement which obviously has grave implications for the future defence of this country, and it is one that we shall want to study closely and to debate. His role has been that of a conjurer concealing by illusion what is really happening to the defence effort. His statement today has been altered from the worst case that was trailed in the Conservative newspapers over the last few weeks and he has tried to induce sighs of relief on the Conservative Benches. But I remind them that this is an illusion.
The right hon. Gentleman has told the truth to the House, but not the whole truth. For example, let me put to him the question of money, which enters crucially into the argument. The question of the funds available and what can we afford has been the subject of debate, yet the Secretary of State did not mention even one figure in his statement. How much will this exercise save compared with the Government's published programme? How much will be saved next year and up to 1985? How much will be saved up to the end of the decade, when the Trident costs will start to bulge?
What percentage of GDP does the Secretary of State envisage for defence in all the programme years? He said that it might take a larger percentage of GDP, but, given that under the dead hand of the Tory Government GDP is not likely to rise in the immediate future, how much of it that is available will be taken up by defence?
My second point concerns the size of the Navy. The Secretary of State has announced what appears to be a reduction of nine ships, from 59 to 50, but he will know, as we all do, that the gross number of ships in the Navy is irrelevant. What is relevant is how many there will be in the front line and how many will be in reserve. Will he confirm or deny that all the 50 ships that he mentioned will be in the front line, or will some be put in mothballs, to be called up when necessary, and left to rot away quietly in some river, thus reducing our total front-line fleet to 30 surface ships, as has been mentioned in the press? Will the third through-deck cruiser be sold or scrapped?
How is it proposed to deal with the 8,000 to 10,000 naval redundancies and the 7,000 redundancies in the Army? Where are they coming from? Are they being made across the board? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any plans to get rid of the extraordinary number of senior naval officers who are still in the Admiralty, although the size of the fleet has shrunk by so much?
I turn to the job implications of the closure of Chatham dockyard. The area already has an unemployment rate of

14·3 per cent. If Chatham is closed, the rate will rise to 25 per cent., and with the indirect consequences it may go up to 33 per cent. At the same time we shall lose the greatest source of expertise in SSN—nuclear-powered submarine—refitting in the Navy. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about that and about Portsmouth? Does he propose to launch any special schemes for redeployment? Will any alternative industry come in, or will Chatham and Portsmouth be cast aside as monuments to the Government's monetarist folly?
What are the implications for British Shipbuilders? How many of the 20 ships that the right hon. Gentleman mentions on page 7 of his statement are already ordered and how many are new orders? If, as I suspect, there are no new orders for British Shipbuilders, what effect will that have on British Shipbuilders? Will it mean that its corporate plan has to be scrapped?
Is it not clear to even the most loyal, unthinking and compliant Government supporter that what we are hearing today is the first instalment that conventional defence has to pay because of the Trident missile system fitting into the defence review? This defence review has been shamelessly rigged, in that Trident's efficacy has never been called into question. By lowering our conventional warfare capability, we are lowering the nuclear threshold. We are abandoning the NATO priority, which is for a strengthening of non-nuclear forces as opposed to nuclear. If the right hon. Gentleman will not cancel this nuclear folly, the next Labour Government will.

Mr. Nott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. We are not trying to save anything; we are spending more on defence. That was the central part of my statement. The percentage of gross domestic product that we shall be spending depends on how fast GDP grows.
Secondly, all of the 50 ships will be available to NATO. They will all be in the NATO operational category, although it is true that eight will be in the stand-by squadron.
We do not need to take any decisions on the carrier at present. HMS "Ark Royal" will not be completed until 1985–86. We shall have to take a decision at about that time about the third ASW carrier.
The reduction in numbers will take place as far as possible by natural wastage. I cannot exclude some redundancies, because it is essential that we keep the balance of the Forces correct and that we have a good balance of recruitment and professional skills within them.
I very much regret the closure of Chatham. It is a matter of great regret. The refits of the nuclear submarines and the other nuclear refits will in future be done in Devonport and Rosyth.
Although the hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear me, I announced today some new ship orders, which I think will be welcome to British Shipbuilders.
I come to the question of Trident. There is a big difference between our achievement already, in this Government's whole period in office, and our forward plans for defence spending, on the one hand, and the implications of the Labour Party's policy of reducing the share of our GDP spent on defence to the European NATO average, on the other hand. We debated the matter recently, and that was the official Labour Party amendment. The difference between the amount of money in our proposals and Labour's proposals is £20 billion. That is enough to pay for Trident four times over.
Therefore, how the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to talk to me about jobs in the defence industry, and our inability to sustain the cost of Trident, I do not understand.

Mr. John: It is clear that the Secretary of State is hard of hearing. I asked what alternative plans his Government had—apart from his Uriah Heep-like expressions of regret—for bringing alternative work to the people who are being displaced in the dockyards. They have served him and his Government, and all Governments, loyally. They demand more than the cheap, intellectual priggishness that they have been treated to recently.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question about Trident? Are we not hearing today about paying the first instalment in conventional defence for fitting in the Trident programme?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Jobs for the Yankees.

Mr. Nott: I have already seen the trade unions—about an hour ago. I shall be seeing them again within the next few weeks to discuss the further details of the Chatham and Portsmouth redundancies. We shall see how we can achieve this very difficult reduction in numbers in the easiest possible way. But I repeat that the hon. Gentleman cannot lecture me about the cost-effectiveness of any of our weapons systems.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but it has been announced that there will be a debate on this question in the near future. Therefore, I propose to allow—exceptionally—a full half-hour for questions and then we shall move on.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the people of Rochester and Chatham elected me to support a Government that would do what has just been done to their dockyard? My right hon. Friend need not reply. I shall tell him the answer: they did not, and I will not.
What are my right hon. Friend's plans on timing? How long have we to fight this diabolical decision? What are my right hon. Friend's plans for the 7,000 work force and their great expertise? Forty-five per cent. of them are dedicated to submarine refitting. How does it happen that in a realignment of the surface fleet this refitting is removed from Chatham, when they have worked up such an expertise?

Mr. Nott: Our plans are for the dockyard and naval base at Chatham to close in 1984. I quite understand that my hon. Friend feels strongly on the matter, and I naturally regret that I have had to make this announcement.
As for the manner of the rundown, over the next few months we shall of course have discussions with the employees and their representatives to see how we can do it in the fairest and most effective way.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: In view of the highly controversial nature of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask whether there is any special significance about the fact that there does not appear to be on the Government Front Bench any representative of the upper echelons of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to listen to what the right hon.
Gentleman says? Is he aware that only last week, in the forum of Western European Union, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave a categorical assurance to the parliamentarians assembled there that there would be no reduction in the conventional forces established in Europe in accordance with the Brussels Treaty? In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the abrogation of an establishment in Germany, is he in a position to give the same categorical assurance, that there will be no diminution in the number of our Forces remaining in Germany in accordance with our obligations?

Mr. Nott: I said in my statement that we shall maintain our Brussels Treaty commitment of 55,000 men. That is what my hon. Friend said at the Western European Union. There will be a reduction in numbers in BAOR of up to 2,000 soldiers, but we shall certainly maintain our Brussels Treaty commitment, which is what my hon. Friend said at the WEU.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I strongly support my right hon. Friend's determination continuously to obtain value for money in defence expenditure, which is very much needed and has often been reported upon by Select Committees, notably the Public Accounts Committee in the last Parliament. Will he give the House two clear assurances?
First, is it his belief that our maritime capacity, actual and potential, including the capacity for refitting, is adequte to safeguard Britain's maritime trade routes upon which the economic health of this country will always depend, in peace and in war?
Secondly, with regard to the hydrographic department of the Royal Navy, which he did not mention today but which is important for both strategic and commercial reasons and which pays its way, will he give an assurance that if he has not already made the decision he will make a decision in future not only to maintain it but to expand it in that strategic and commercial interest?

Mr. Nott: I certainly assure my right hon. Friend that we shall retain an adequate capacity for refitting the fleet that I have described for the next decade.
With regard to the hydrographic fleet, perhaps I may deal with that in greater detail when I speak in the debate that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has suggested. I cannot undertake that the fleet will be expanded, but I should like to deal with the subject in more detail in the debate.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: With regard to anti-submarine warfare, is the Minister sure that he is not relying too much on nuclear-powered submarines and maritime patrol aircraft, and the barrier operations and search-and-destroy techniques in which they undoubtedly excel? How will he provide, for example, for the pre-positioned hostile submarine or a breakdown in barrier operations if he cannot muster a balanced mix of forces, including certainly more escort vessels than the absurdly low figure of 50 that he now proposes?

Mr. Nott: I am not making any judgments about operational questions of that kind, but the surface fleet will still be substantial. There will be a very substantial increase in maritime air capability, particularly with the new weapons. There will also be an increase in the submarine fleet. However, I think that the techniques of anti-submarine warfare are better dealt with in a debate rather than in supplementary questions and answers.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: Does the Minister accept that the reduction in the Navy of both escorts and men will be a very severe blow to it which, in my opinion, will mean that it will not have the capacity adequately to safeguard the convoys which must come to and go from this country in wartime? Does he also accept that the reduction at Portsmouth and the closing of Chatham will have severe repercussions in the neighbourhoods of both ports and indeed the whole of South Hampshire in the case of Portsmouth?
Will the Minister also answer two specific questions? Will he ensure that Ministry of Defence contracts are placed in the Portsmouth area, in particular with Vosper Thornycroft and Marconi? Will he further undertake to continue the close collaboration with local representatives to ensure that the least possible hardship is suffered in these most regrettable reductions?

Mr. Nott: I believe that the only way that we can afford to go on building new ships for the Royal Navy is by cutting down on the support costs of the existing arrangements. We cannot simply go on modernising Leander frigates at a cost of £70 million each when we can build the new type 23 for about £60 million. It is looking to the future of the Navy that leads one to that conclusion. The main reductions have therefore been in the infrastructure and not in the front-line capability.
With regard to the defence industries in my hon. Friend's area, Portsmouth will remain a major naval base. There is a tremendous concentration of defence industries in that area. I have attempted to avoid substantial cutbacks in procurement so that the defence industries are not affected, but I can do that only if I look to savings in the support infrastructure, which is what I have done.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Will the Secretary of State explain why he thinks it wise to reduce the Army by 7,000, having regard to the enormous burden of Northern Ireland and the very frequent rotation of units there which often requires the taking of troops from West Germany, considerations which caused me to increase the number when I was in office?
Secondly, how many of the M23 frigates have been ordered? Does the Minister appreciate that we shall not sell any unless they are already down the line with a much shorter delivery time than we can normally quote? Has he made up his mind whether he intends to try to sell them for export or for the Royal Navy? Are they to be financed by the defence Vote, or by the Department of Industry Vote, as they should be if they are to be part of the export programme?
Finally, as it seems that we intend to spend so much more than our European allies, what is the Minister doing to encourage NATO to increase its expenditure? Can he give us some idea of NATO's preferences as between our conventional forces and the very expensive Trident programme which, in my view, is not justified against our general economic background or the programme that he has now announced?

Mr. Nott: On the last point, that may be the right hon. Gentleman's view, but it is not the view of our NATO allies who welcomed the Government's decision to modernise the strategic nuclear deterrent. Moreover, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for

Defence he, too, was modernising the strategic deterrent with Chevaline. I am surprised that he has changed his mind in the past 18 months.
I should, of course, prefer to increase the size of the Army rather than to diminish it, but I regret to say that, with cost escalation of equipment at its present level, it is not possible both to maintain the enhancement of our weapons systems in Germany and also to retain the full present size of the regular Army.
The type 23 is still in the design stage. We are trying to get the plans ready as soon as possible, but it will be between a year and 18 months before we can place tae first order for a type 23. It is all being financed on the defence procurement Vote.
Finally, of course, I believe that our NATO allies should increase defence spending. That is the purpose of the 3 per cent. But it does not help very much to lecture one's allies. One must just encourage them along.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the use of the term "contraction" with regard to Portsmouth dockyard is no comfort whatever to the thousands of people who will lose their jobs with no prospect of finding alternative employment in that area?
Does the Minister also accept that the deterioration in morale in the dockyard which will follow today's statement will make an orderly contraction difficult to obtain? Will he also explain how, if his strategic decision with regard to the surface fleet proves to be wrong, the necessary back-up capacity could be provided for the hastily assembled surface fleet which might well be needed in an emergency?
Finally, I wish to put two specific questions. First, will the Minister give a clear assurance that the Portsmouth naval base will still be regularly visited by warships of all classes and from all nations and that it will have the proper facilities to receive and to service them? Secondly, with regard to the base and the dockyard, will he give an assurance that the giving up of Ministry of Defence land to the civic authorities and to private development will take place as soon as possible, but that before that happens sensitive industries will be offered places within the secure perimeter, for example, for the production—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the House wants to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency is affected, but I have given a time limit. Perhaps he will now come to his concluding question.

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend that the contraction of Portsmouth will be very severe. I can only say that we shall try to make it as orderly as we possibly can. As my hon. Friend knows, whenever the economy is buoyant there is anyway a considerable problem with Portsmouth. I believe that when the economy picks up there will be additional jobs available in the Portsmouth area. Portsmouth naval base will continue as at present. I shall certainly look into my hon. Friend's questions about land, and I shall be happy to discuss with him any problems concerning the Portsmouth dockyard contraction if he would like to come and see me.

Dr. David Owen: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite the very painful consequences of some of these decisions, he is to be congratulated on the fact that at long last, after two years


of total unreality in the defence budget, he is grappling with the central need to start to control the defence budget? He will be supported in that, and in particular he will be supported in his decision to slim BAOR and to concentrate the dockyards. But how does he justify a decision to reduce the surface ships and yet not to increase the hunter-killer submarine build rate? The build rate of 17 is that which has been planned for the last 12 years. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if the economy continues to decline it will be very hard to justify even the present expenditure, and that it is on that basis that we still feel that it is wrong to pursue the Trident modernisation programme?

Mr. Nott: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his earlier remarks. I do not think that I need comment further on Trident at the moment. We shall no doubt be debating that again. With regard to the SSN programme—the hunter-killer nuclear submarines—I was referring to the numbers of them that will be in the fleet in 1990. I was not saying how many orders we would place between now and then. I was saying that we now have 12 in the fleet, and that we shall have 17 in the fleet by 1990. The number of orders that we can place in the next few years is a different question.
There is a contraction in the overall size of the surface fleet. That was not a strategic decision, as I think was earlier suggested. It was a consequence of feeling that we could no longer afford a dockyard infrastructure of the size that we have, and, therefore, the continual modernisation of the old Leander frigates. It was a consequence of that rather than a plan to reduce the size of the surface fleet. But in considering defence capability as opposed to separate Service Votes, I have calculated very carefully that over the next decade, as a result of these proposals, we could expect a shift in planned allocations of only about 3 per cent. from maritime to land-air capabilities. So the shift is not nearly as great when we consider capability as opposed to actual Service boxes, if I may put it in that way, as has been suggested in the last few weeks.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the common sense which he has deployed in the defence review, may I ask what he is doing within the Ministry of Defence to improve its efficiency? In particular, is he examining the terms and conditions and the specifications which are imposed on suppliers, and which add to the Government's own costs and deny those suppliers export opportunities which they could achieve through commonality?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my right hon. Friend that a great deal of change and improvement is needed in the whole contract area and in the manner in which we procure new equipment. There is also a need to bring industry in earlier, with its own funds, and to build simpler equipment—and perhaps, if the Public Accounts Committee would allow it, even to enhance the profit margins, having got industry into these projects earlier. All these matters are of very great importance.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Could the Secretary of State tell me how much consideration the Cabinet gave to the effects on British Shipbuilders before reaching this decision? Is he aware

that the corporate plan presented by British Shipbuilders to the trade unions was conditional on approximately 18,000 employees being transferred from merchant shipbuilding to naval work? How can the corporate plan, in those terms, proceed?
What future can the Secretary of State offer to the workers at Swan Hunter on the Tyne? Does he realise that he could scrap the Navy completely and rebuild it with modern purpose-built ships for the cost of Trident?

Mr. Nott: I have kept very closely in touch with the chairman of British Shipbuilders, and HMS "Ark Royal" is being completed now in Swan Hunter. If we were to continue the existing refit structure, with the modernisa-tion of older ships, obviously we should have fewer new ships than will now be the case. I accept that there is a problem in the warship building yards and that there is bound to be, in the next few years, a shift to the new defence technologies, which are less labour-intensive, and away from the labour-intensive warship building capacity. But I am in very close touch with the chairman of British Shipbuilders and helping as best I can.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we shall at least welcome the realisation in his statement of the need to build cheaper ships, so that we can sell some of them abroad? We also welcome the suggested reduction in bureaucracy. Is the Secretary of State aware that on the Liberal Benches we believe that he is sacrificing our Eastern Atlantic defences on the altar of Trident, and that many jobs in shipyards—including Vosper Thornycroft, in which some of my constituents work, and in Portsmouth—are at stake? Is he satisfied that sonar protection is adequate protection in the Eastern Atlantic, with the 137 submarines of the Russian fleet? Finally, what is to happen in Cammell Laird?

Mr. Nott: I realise that if the political parties in this country have taken up a position that is antagonistic to Trident, there is not a lot more I can do to persuade them. But the amount of money that Trident will cost us in the next few years is not more than a couple of hundred million pounds on average, against a total budget of £12½ billion. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that, if we did not have Trident in our programme, the kinds of changes that I have announced today would not have been essential. That is even on a rapidly rising budget, and Trident is a very small proportion of the additional 3 per cent. that I have announced.
I must deal with Cammell Laird separately in the debate.

Mr. Anthony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that on the Conservative Benches we are all very glad that he has made the statement, as there is no more debilitating phenomenon than uncertainty? His statement will dispel some of that uncertainty. Does he agree that the most important part of his statement is the announcement that there will be an extension of our defence capacity right through to 1985–86? Are other NATO countries following our admirable example?
One understands the feelings of hon. Members concerning the dockyards. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be ample dockyard facility remaining for the proper refurbishment of the fleet and, in due course, our Trident boats as well?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it has been necessary to remove the uncertainty, which has been rife while the review has been undertaken.
We are spending more on our defence than any of our European NATO allies are spending. It would be a great encouragement to us if they were to emulate our example. There will be sufficient dockyard capacity to look after the fleet and to refit the nuclear submarines. There will, of course, be a smaller dockyard capacity, because we shall reduce the refining of the older surface ships and build new ships instead. I give my hon. and learned Friend that assurance, and I am grateful to him for what he has said.

Dr. John Gilbert: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in sinking more ships in one afternoon than any foreign admiral ever did, can he say whether his calculations are based on the £5,000 million Trident system, or can we expect more cuts later if he decides to opt for Trident 2? Secondly, will he list all the equipment projects for the Army and the Royal Air Force which have been slowed down, reduced in number or reduced in quality as a result of his clinging to this Trident nuclear virility symbol?

Mr. Nott: As I said in my statement, throughout the programme, possibly with the exception of a smaller dockyard structure, I believe that there is an enhancement in our front-line capability. Moreover, I have put additional considerable sums of money into the combat stocks of our Forces so that their staying power in a conflict will be enhanced. Nothing is more important than that in raising the nuclear threshold. In the Trident expenditure costings, I have taken account of the figure of £5 billion that I have announced on many occasions to the House.

Mr. Keith Speed: In addition to the two amphibious warfare ships and the two carriers that we will be losing over the next few years, what number of destroyers and frigates will be disposed of or placed into reserve over the next five years? This is an important matter. It is not just a question of 59 to 50, because, clearly, many more ships than that will no longer be in the active operational fleet.

Mr. Nott: By the mid-1980s we shall have got rid of most of the County and all of the Rothesay class as well as some old Leanders. That is about 20 old ships in all. The 20 ships that will go out of the fleet in the next five years—as my hon. Friend knows, they have reached the end of their life—will be replaced by the 20 new ships that are now in the shipyards.
My hon. Friend also referred to the reduction from 59 surface ships to 50. Eight of the more modern Leanders will be in the standby squadron. Therefore—I do not seek to hide it—there will be some reduction in the overall readiness of the fleet in view of the fact that the standby squadron is at 30-days-plus readiness. However, that is nothing like the kind of catastrophic change in the surface fleet which many newspapers have suggested.

Mr. Dick Douglas: What has happened to the dockyard study? Is it now in mothballs? We require some indication of overall employment in the dockyards and naval bases. In addition, can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication about the phasing of the refit programme. Our suspicion is that the timing of the refit programme will be extended, as a result of which the capability of our fleet in service terms will be reduced.

Mr. Nott: The refits will now be finished in the yards. We will no longer go in for mid-life modernisations of any of the older ships. The rephasing of the present fleet into the new structure will require a great deal of working out, and that is taking place at present. There will be much less dockyard capacity than the dockyard study suggested, but many of the admirable suggestions in the study will be implemented, and I have referred to some of them in the White Paper which is now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the sensible and responsible method of his overall approach to this difficult problem. Is he aware that, unlike the Opposition, the Conservative Party is determined to maintain Britain's effective defences against the real threats that face us, and welcomes the support that he has given to our long-term defence capability through the significant orders that he has today placed with British Industry?

Mr. Nott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two more hon. Members from either side in view of the circumstances.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What is the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on employment at Vosper Thornycroft, Southampton and the Royal naval dockyard in Portsmouth? Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department help the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) redraft the leaflet which appeared at a recent election which stated "Save Portsmouth, Save the dockyard—Vote Conservative"?

Mr. Nott: I shall communicate with the hon. Gentleman and give him as much information as I can. The amount of work going to Vosper Thornycroft will very much depend on its success in obtaining orders. Generally speaking, there will be an increase year by year in the amount spent by my Department on procurement with British industry. The sums are increasing. Therefore, I am sure that the defence industries will welcome the Government's increase in expenditure to buy defence equipment in the future.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the recent debate, as reported in column 165 of Hansard for 19 May, he assured the House that the through-deck cruisers would be completed and would remain part of our defence programme? Does he also recall that I have written to him on this subject and that I have yet to receive a reply? What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with our American allies about our pledge to maintain 70 per cent. of the ASW commitment in the Eastern Atlantic? Does my right hon. Friend really believe that 25 or 30 Nimrod aircraft will replace a similar number of frigates, because I think that most unlikely?

Mr. Nott: I do not believe that, and I have never said it. I have never suggested that Nimrods, submarines or anything else can take the place of surface ships. I visited Washington last weekend and met my counterpart, Mr. Weinberger. We had excellent discussions. He welcomed the Government's decisions to increase our defence expenditure, and he understands the thrust of our proposals. While he must speak for himself, I believe that


he supports our determination to reduce support infrastructure rather than the front-line capability of our forces, which in nearly every area is enhanced.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: What was the reaction of the trade unions to the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made to them an hour earlier, and how many job losses did he indicate would take effect as a result of these proposals? What will be the effect of his proposals on Gibraltar? What level of unemployment does he expect there among members of the trade union to which I belong as a result of these proposals? What additional economic help does he intend to give that area to try to overcome the effects of his decisions?

Mr. Nott: The hon. Gentleman must ask the trade unions for their reactions. I saw their representatives very briefly. In so far as there will be substantial job losses in the Ministry of Defence, I would not expect the MOD trade unions to be very happy. It would be surprising if they were.
I have given a broad outline of our desire to discuss the question of the dockyard with the Gibraltar Government, and that we shall undoubtedly do in due course.

Sir Frederick Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) for support, but Chatham dockyard is situated in Gillingham. I must therefore admit that this is the most distressing day that I have experienced in the 30 years that I have been a Member of this House. My right hon. Friend's decision means that Chatham dockyard is to close, despite the fact that over the years a sense of service to the nation, especially to the fleet, has developed there. About 9,000 men and women employed in the dockyard will now cease work two or three years hence. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that the level of unemployment in the area is now more than 13 per cent. and that it has risen by 5 per cent. in the last year?
I believe that there is a gut reaction among many people against the cuts which my right hon. Friend is making in the Royal Navy. Unless he can give an assurance that there

will be no war within the next 20 years, these cuts in the surface fleet will be very dangerous. The replacement and restructuring that my right hon. Friend proposes will take some considerable time to come into operation. I understand that the surface ship replacement that he has in mind has not yet been designed and considered for construction. I believe that these proposals are utterly dangerous, and I cannot support this defence policy.

Mr. Nott: I understand that my hon. Friend finds this a very distressing day. It is a very distressing matter for Chatham; that I perfectly well understand, and I genuinely regret it. The job losses in Chatham will be about 7,000. I think my hon. Friend talked about 9,000 job losses.

Sir Frederick Burden: With the ancillaries.

Mr. Nott: We shall do our best to hold the surface fleet—our force declarations to NATO—above 50. It will vary year by year, depending on the speed with which we phase out the older ships and also on the speed with which we are able to bring in the new type 23. We shall do our best to hold it over 50 as against the present 59.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement that has just been made by the Secretary of State for Defence will have extreme repercussions on the shipbuilding industry. I saw the Secretary of State for Industry in his place a moment ago and I assumed that he would make a statement on the effect of the defence statement on the British shipbuilding industry. I see that he has now left the Chamber. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, have received a request from him to make a statement. If not may we have a statement by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I have not. I have allowed extra time for the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. — [Mr. Le Marchant.]

Orders of the Day — Fisheries Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Title

Lords amendment:No. 1, in line 8, leave out "section 6" and insert "sections 6 and 7"

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That this house doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 17.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Amendment No. 17, of which amendment No. 1 is consequential is one of the provisions in the Bill designed to assist fish farmers. Clause 33 removes unnecessary controls on the activities of fish farmers in England and Wales, controls which were designed to provide for the conservation of wild fish and which are not appropriate in respect of fish farmers. While in general Scottish legislation already provides the necessary exemptions for fish farmers in Scotland, the Scottish legislation which applies to the English section of the River Tweed does not provide these exemptions. So amendment No. 17 is needed to provide the necessary exemptions on the English section of the Tweed, and thus bring the legislation for this small but important area into line with the rest of Britain. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has an interest in this.

Mr. A. J. Beith: As I so often pursue the Minister on amendments affecting the English section of the Tweed, I assure him that I am entirely satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 9, leave out "for assisting persons to meet" and insert "to persons incurring".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take Lords amendment No. 3.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Amendment No. 2 is a drafting amendment to improve the language.
Amendment No. 3 is slightly more substantial. The purpose of clause 3(4) is to ensure that the new Sea Fish Industry Authority's financial aid policies have the approval of the Government. As the Sea Fish Industry Authority's scope for giving financial aid has been widened to the matter of guarantees, this subsection should similarly be widened to bring the guarantee power as well as the grants and loans within the requirement for Government approval.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Clause 5

RECORDS AND INFORMATION FOR LEVY PURPOSES

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 19, after "owned" insert "by".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment is simply to correct a grammatical error.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11

ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 8, line 2. after "affairs" insert
at the end of the financial year and of the Authority's income and expenditure in the financial year".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is made to avoid any possible doubt about the obligations placed on the authority in respect of its annual accounts. This provision simply reflects standard accounting procedures.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 21, line 12, leave out "fishing boat" and insert "vessel".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These three small amendments are consequential on additions made to the Bill in the House creating the power to licence vessels that receive fish by trans-shipment.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The amendments are consequential on the new clauses which the Minister moved on Report. We were pleased that he did so because we felt that the most important objective was an effective system of licensing of klondikers. We are moving into the mackerel season, and no doubt the klondikers of Eastern Europe will be appearing on the scene. We regard the control of klondikers as vital for conservation reasons and because jobs are being lost to this country by the trans-shipment of mackerel and other species.
The Minister of State referred previously to the klondiking which took place with herring. We hope that successful herring fishing will develop again without the return of the klondikers. When I asked the Minister whether the licence power could be withdrawn, he sand that it could. These amendments will make it even easier under the appropriate legislation to debar an owner of a klondiking vessel from holding a licence.
The most important aspect of this matter is the creation of a framework for the licensing of klondikers. It is academic to talk about the withdrawal of licences, if a licensing system is not in operation. Having achieved


licensing, it is important to ensure that the Government will follow it through. That is the will of the House. The House would not have wanted the new clause if it did not intend it to be used.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will press ahead with these measures and that an order will be laid in time for effective licensing of the klondikers to take place in the forthcoming season?

5 pm

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I wish briefly to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). As my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware, when this matter was discussed in Committee, it gave rise to considerable concern among those of us who have large fishing interests. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that not only will the licensing of klondikers be implemented, but that both he and his colleagues have every intention of implementing such a system once the Bill has received Royal assent.
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box today. This is the first occasion that he has done so since he was honoured by the Queen in the recent Honours List.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) for his kind remarks. I appreciate that this is an important matter. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) acknowledged, the Bill did not originally include this power but as a result of our debates in Committee, it has now been included. I do not wish to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, but I have not changed the view that I expressed in Committee. I am happy to have the power, but as hon. Members know, considerable control powers as regards klondikers have been included in the Bill. Those powers will help us to deal with abuses in the system of klondiking. At this stage, I cannot give an assurance that we will take immediate powers to introduce the licensing of klondiking vessels. Indeed, we should not physically be able to do so in time for the coming season.
Obviously, licensing powers cannot be introduced without considerable discussion with the interests concerned. Therefore, in purely practical terms, it would not be possible to introduce such powers. I do not want to mislead the House, by saying "in purely practical terms" as if it were a cover-up for other reasons. It would also be useful if we could use the coming mackerel season and possibly the herring season, if—I emphasise "if'—it is reopened, to see how the new control powers operate. Until we have experience of the new control powers in the coming season, I shall keep an open mind about whether licensing powers should be introduced later.

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks are most disappointing and will be a matter of considerable regret to large sections of the freezing and processing industry? They are determined that fish caught by our fishermen in our waters should be landed at British ports, with the associated creation of wealth and jobs. I serve notice on the Minister that the Opposition—no doubt with the support of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire,

East (Mr. McQuarrie)—will press the Government to go ahead quickly with the introduction of such a licensing scheme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has adopted an extremely simplistic view. He knows that such licensing powers cannot be introduced without full consultation with those concerned. I stick to the undertaking that I gave in Committee, which no one questioned. I am a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman should put that interpretation on what I have said today.
We have taken considerable control powers, which will enable us to deal with many of the problems. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that. My mind remains open as to whether it is necessary, in addition, to take licensing powers. I am sure that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) when I say that I am not prepared to take licensing powers simply for the sake of them. That would be foolish. To impose restrictions without full knowledge of what one was doing and without full consultation would not make sense.
I repeat that I am glad that we have such licensing powers. However, it is only sensible and practical to see, in the coming season, how the additional control measures work. I shall give the matter further consideration if, in the light of our experience of the new control powers, it seems necessary to supplement them will full licensing powers. I do not dissent one iota from the hon. Gentleman's general view that we should get the maximum advantage from mackerel and herring fishing. I shall certainly use whatever means are available to enable us to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 30

ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY FISHING REGULATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 26, leave out lines 32 to 44 and insert—


"(1) The following provisions apply in relation to enforceable Community restrictions relating to sea fishing except where, or to the extent that, other provision is made by an order under subsection (3) below—

(a) if any fishing boat fishes within British fishery limits in contravention of any such restriction, the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) are each guilty of an offence;
(b) sections 11, 12, 14 and 15(2) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (penalties, jurisdiction and powers of seizure) apply to such offences as they apply to offences under section 5(1) of that Act; and
(c) section 8 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 (general powers of British sea fishery officers) has effect in relation to such restrictions as it has effect in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) of that section."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These amendments are slightly more substantial and I shall explain them, so that hon. Members can understand what is proposed. The House will realise that, according to the wording to subsection 1 of the clause as it left the House, all Community restrictions relating to sea fishing automatically attract a single level of maximum fine appropriate to prohibitions of fishing under section 5(1) of the Sea Fish


(Conservation) Act 1967—that is, £50,000 on summary conviction. However, not all offences which would be covered by that subsection will necessarily warrant a maximum fine at that level.
The Government have, therefore, decided that a degree of flexibility should be built into the subsection to enable Ministers, when necessary, to make an order. I emphasise the word "order". That means that there is further reference to the House. The order would apply penalties and so on, on the same basis as for other obligations under subsection (2). I emphasise that such orders could apply only lower maximum penalties than those provided for in section 5 of the 1967 Act. In other words, an order could only be made to lessen the severity of the criminal law.
Amendment No. 12 is slightly different. Clause 30 provides powers for the enforcement of Community fisheries legislation in our waters, including legislation which would follow from agreement on a common fisheries policy. The Clause contains subsidiary powers needed for the enforcement of the Community provisions, relating, for example, to the setting of maximum penalties for offences, and giving British sea fishery officers the powers that they need to examine vessels.
I am advised that the present lists of powers are incomplete and that it would be of advantage, in enforcing the Community law, if the full range of enforcement provisions currently available to our enforcement authorities for enforcing existing United Kingdom laws should also be available to them in enforcing the Community provisions.

Mr. McQuarrie: As my right hon. Friend has said, Lords Amendment No. 9 seeks to alter lines 32 to 44 of page 26. That will have the effect of giving the Minister powers, under an order, to alter the maximum fine on summary conviction, of £50,000, which can be imposed on an owner-master or charterer of any vessel.
Although I accept that such orders will apply if the amendments are accepted, they can apply only lower maximum penalties than those provided for under section 5 of the 1967 Act. Any order that the Minister might make could only lessen—as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said—the severity of the criminal law. Hon. Members would like to be assured that any order that the Minister may make will not diminish the penalties to such an extent that offenders will not be penalised and will continue to offend in the knowledge that the penalties are not as punitive as the existing £50,000 fine that can be imposed under section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation Act) 1967. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will let the House have that assurance.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We should not have introduced the higher limit of £50,000 if we had not wanted to ensure that offences were treated seriously. We have sought the power to introduce a lower limit for certain offences, because there are gradations of offence. For example, serious offences can be committed as regards mesh sizes, but not all such offences are serious.
Therefore, in this case—I am thinking especially of the use of undersized nets—we might want to introduce a lower ceiling of penalties. Where the offence is serious I do not want to see the limit lowered. I assure my hon. Friend of that. I emphasise that the Government would have to introduce an order, so there will be an opportunity for discussion of that order in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 31

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Lords amendment: No. 13 in, page 27, line 29, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 32.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are also to take Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 15. I call attention to the fact that privilege is involved in these amendments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The amendment made in the House of Lords is a substantive amendment. It is a proposal that we discussed at considerable length in Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Come) who took a special interest in this subject in Committee and pressed on the Government the desirability of making more money available for the fish farming industry. I have no doubt that he will welcome the amendment made in another place and the fact that the Government have decided to accept it.
My noble Friend made it clear in another place that we are ready to accept that the clause should give general enabling powers for the provision of grant aid to fish farmers. We took careful note not only of what was said in Committee but the points made in the other place by Lord Cledwyn, who moved the amendment, and to whom I pay tribute for the moderate and constructive way in which he put it.
Lord Cledwyn made it clear that enabling powers were being sought and not a commitment to use the full range of the powers. I emphasise that, because, although I am prepared to accept the enabling power, by doing so I do not want to encourage the view that in the short term the Government would seize the opportunity to use the powers.
I am afraid that the financial circumstances are the same as I explained in the earlier stages of the Bill. There is no provision in the existing public expenditure programme for such a scheme. In present economic circumstances I could not make a commitment to introduce such a scheme. In the light of the strength of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire and in another place, I am prepared to see enabling powers in the Bill. At the appropriate stage, when financial circumstances permit, we shall have the power on the statute book and it can be used by the Government or a future Government.
As I said earlier, the fish farming industry is important to this country. It is a young growth industry which in some areas can provide much stimulus to employment and to economic activity. I cannot see us using the enabling power in the near future but that does not detract from the role that the industry has to play—which, as in so many other ways in the Bill, we are seeking to help.
I do not think that what I have said is unexpected. I should like to give a happier answer, that we would use. the enabling power in the near future, but it is only fair to the House to spell out the precise financial position.

Mr. Roy Mason: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on two counts: first on receiving his Privy Councillorship, as I am sure the House and those interested in agriculture and fisheries will know that in the past two years he has earned it. Secondly, I congratulate him on accepting the Lords amendments. Although he resisted that move in Committee, he has had the grace to accept defeat from the other place. But I do not want him to repeat the dampener that he has put on accepting the amendments.
The fish farming industry must be encouraged. The clutch of amendments to clause 31 is designed to encourage the growth of what the Minister calls a young industry. I have been following the subject with great interest. The industry has so much to offer. First, it is a developing source of high protein food and, interestingly, so many species can be fanned, all of which will be in great demand in markets, supermarkets, hotels and, even, exports.
In recent times more trout is going into the home than ever before. It is not just hotel or restaurant fare. With expansion in the fish farming industry, oysters, prawns turbot, sole and many other table species could be farmed and would be readily available at manageable prices for working class families who would not have to confine their main fish dish to North Sea cod—good though it is. Fish farming producing a variety of white table fish could be an attractive proposition.
Secondly, the Minister briefly mentioned that it would provide an expansion of jobs in rural areas, such as jobs in fish production, transport, the service industries; all helping to stop the drift from the countryside.
Thirdly, there is a possibility of a growing export industry. We have allowed some Continental countries to move ahead of us. For example, the demand for oysters and prawns in the hotel trade and clubland is considerable. Already, even from Northern Ireland, the production of the Pacific oyster—an oyster being farmed there which can be eaten all the year round—is an export winner and selling well on the Continent. In my days there I gave it all the encouragement I could.
Apart from that selective form of export, there is still much to be done in the mass production of some species of fish for some impoverished countries where fish is not so easily available. Much lies ahead for this small industry which, if it is given the right financial encouragement by the Government and the EEC, could do so much for employment in many of our rural areas. It could satisfy a growing desire for more types of species of table fish and encourage the export trade.
Another new use of fish farming could be to produce grass carp. That is a species of carp that could be introduced into many lakes and coarse fishing ponds to devour much of the weed that is choking many good sporting fish waters.
The Ministry of Agriculture has had the imported grass carp under surveillance and test for some time. It is now satisfied that it has not imported any alien diseases and it is being released under control to selected breeders and bailiffs. That could prove to be a boon to many water bailiffs and water authorities to help clear their waters and, especially, to coarse fishing, the most thriving sport in the country.
The amended clause 31 will be designed to encourage all those developments. It arms the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture with enabling powers to act with financial assistance as soon as the Bill is enacted and the review document is published. We want to be assured that the Ministry has sufficient powers to act swiftly.
We hope that the review which has been promised—in Committee it was promised in the spring and the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he had the draft in his hands on 19 February—will chart a course for the industrial expansion of fish farming. We hope that it will point the way to a national grants scheme for fish farming instead of the small and inadequate power and finance that is now available from sources which give a picture of inconsistent treatment in the United Kingdom as a whole.
No doubt Government guidance will be given in the review about species that can be farmed, control of licences, planning advice, disease control and so on, to ensure the expansion of a properly controlled and regulated industry. Perhaps we could be told which bodies are financing fish farming, their total annual grants and the regions of the United Kingdom that benefit.
The industry is still in its birth throes. How big is it? How many fish farms are there in this country and what is their total output? If Government and Common Market grants are to be more readily available after the passing of the Bill, what will be the starting point? How big is the industry?
I have perused all the papers that we received in Committee and reports of the passage of the Bill through another place. Little information has been provided during the Bill's progress through Parliament. The Minister of State said in Committee that, in addition to the imminent release of the review of fish farming, another review is underway on inland fisheries—lakes, ponds and fishing rivers. What does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind? What will the review cover?
Many anglers and their associations will be taking a keen interest in that review. Angling is the biggest participant sport in the United Kingdom. In the coarse fishing season, allied with deep sea fishing, 3 million people go fishing every weekend. I am one of them and I participate in deep sea, fly and coarse fishing, so I am particularly interested in the review.
This is an appropriate time for the Minister to unveil what he and the Ministry have in mind for anglers and the future of their sport. It is very important, because it affects millions of anglers and the vast organisation of industries and firms that support them. Some information about the review would be helpful.

Mr. John Corrie: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his kind references to me. I should point out that in Committee the Opposition also pressed hard on this matter. I thank my right hon. Friend even more for accepting the amendments. There will be an enormous welcome for the Government's decision from the fish farming industry, coupled with an understanding of the fact that, because of the economic situation, the powers are only enabling.
As the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said, the Government's decision will be an enormous boost to a relatively young industry which has enormous potential, particularly in rural areas. It is just what is needed to encourage development in the industry.
Fish farming is not in competition with sea farming, but complementary to it. It is easy for large industrial groups to find the capital required to set up in fish farming, but it is difficult for small farmers and crofters to find the necessary capital. Eventually, it will be possible for those who have access to the grants and subsidies, when we can pay them, and access to water to benefit.
Fish farmers tend to be not ex-fishermen but the sons of fishermen or stockmen who have been farmers. Fish farming requires a high degree of stockmanship. I look forward to the day when there are many small units in our rural marine areas, where farmers can act as partners to big organisations and can take in young fish, rear them and sell them back matured to those organisations. In that way we could get quality control as well as market control.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State would be the first to agree that small farmers in rural areas are just the people who need and deserve most help. They tend to live in remote areas and often have only small incomes and cannot afford the necessary capital to set up in business. The Government are taking a major step in helping the industry, which has already been helped through rate relief.
There is still much to be done. I hope that the Government will bring in further legislation, particularly on the control and eradication of diseases, import controls on live fish and so on, to protect our industry from the ravages of disease. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us some idea when such legislation might be introduced.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I join the other speakers in the debate in welcoming the Government's decision to accept the amendments, which will allow the promotion of schemes to assist fish farming. I am less enthusiastic about the Minister of State's suggestion that he does not expect that money will be forthcoming from the Government.
Could the scheme be used in connection with money made available by the Highlands and Islands Development Board? Would it be necessary for the HIDB to use the enabling powers if it wished to promote a fish farming scheme in which those involved wanted to avail themselves of assistance from the EEC?
I understand that the HIDB finances a number of important fish farming ventures in the Highlands and Islands. There are several in my constituency, including an important one at Scourie, where salmon are being successfully farmed in an area where employment is difficult to find. That highlights the importance of fish farming in providing employment in remoter rural areas.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) referred to oysters from Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether the clause relates to Northern Ireland. The scheme may extend to the whole of Great Britain, which does not include Northern Ireland. If the Province is excluded, perhaps the Minister of State will explain why.
I understand the general tightness of finance, but the fishing industry is under considerable pressure and it would be reasonable for the Government to look to fish farming as an area where there could be useful expenditure to make good some of the losses of stocks that are resulting from the contraction of the industry.
I hope that the Minister of State will come back to the House soon to take the Government beyond a mere commitment in principle to using new resources to enable

the development of species currently regarded as luxuries, such as turbot, sole and some shellfish, for the benefit of our consumers as well as the producers.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for the kind words at the beginning of his speech and I thank other hon. Members for welcoming the amendments.
I particularly return the thanks of the right hon. Member for Barnsley, because I visited a number of fishing ports in Northern Ireland earlier this week and I was entertained to lunch by some of the fishing interests. At the lunch I was given the opportunity to taste the very oysters of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. If, during his period as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he had some responsibility for assisting in that development, all I can say is that it was a very worthwhile development that I have subsequently been able to enjoy.
5.30 pm
More seriously, the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the development of special fisheries such as oysters and the help given in different areas has not only benefited those operating the farms but has also helped to develop the potential for exports.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about fish farming generally. A considerable number of bodies can give and have given grants for fish farming. It is possible for my Department, for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland and for the Welsh Office to give grants under the Agriculture and Horticultural Development Scheme and under the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme:. Grants can also be made by the Department of Industry, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, the Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board also has powers. I am not aware of any problems within. the Highlands and Islands Development Board relating to EEC: finance. So far as I know, the board has the necessary enabling powers and can take advantage of funds available from Europe. If, however, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has any problems in mind, I should be grateful if he will inform me about them. I shall pass them to my noble Friend who deals with these matters within the Scottish Office.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Highlands and Islands Development Board for the financial help given to fish farming and the initiative taken in research programmes and activities to encourage fish farming in an area that has natural advantages through the availability of water and so on.
Grants are also available in Northern Ireland. In answer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I can say that Northern Ireland is excluded from the Bill because: powers already exist there. Northern Ireland blazed a trail for the House with the Assistance to Fish Farming Scheme (NI) 1973. Another source of grants is the European Community. The Bill assists those in this country who wish to take up European grants.
I was asked to identify the regions that benefit from grants. It is fair to say that Scotland has benefited more than any other region. The bulk of the grants has gone to Scotland. This is explained to some extent by the fact that Scotland has been a particularly suitable area for this type


of development. The total of grants paid in 1980–81, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was about £1 million. There are about 400 fish farms.
There has been reference to the review that the Government are carrying out. The right hon. Member for Barnsley is right in recalling that I had hoped that we should be able to issue the consultative document this spring. Those who have suffered the vagaries of the British weather, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has suffered them on his fishing expeditions at weekends, will know that spring is a little late this year. I am sorry that we have not yet issued the document. I hope to be able to issue it shortly because I should like consultations to begin as soon as possible.
The document will cover a wide number of issues. It is not for me to anticipate the result of consultations. The document will cover broadly the issues of local fisheries administration, salmon, fish farming and fish diseases. Many of the issues are related. On a number of issues, interests will conflict. There will be legitimate commercial interests on the one hand and equally legitimate sporting and angling interests on the other.
I shall seek to set out the different arguments as fairly as possible. I hope that all the interests concerned—sporting, industrial and administrative—will submit their views. I shall, of course, try in some areas to give guidance relating to the lines on which discussion should proceed. I am not, however, prejudging any issue. I shall await the replies before coming to any decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) asked about the possibility of legislation following the consultative document. The Bill deals with a number of matters that the Government have identified as urgent and requiring action. Equally, when my hon. Friend sees the consultative document, I think he will appreciate that it refers to some matters on which action could be taken administratively if the decision is that action is needed. Legislation would not necessarily be required. Some items, of course, may require legislation. I cannot say what items might emerge. If that were known, there would be no purpose in issuing the consultative document.
There will be limitations on the opportunities for legislation in the next parliamentary Session. I cannot give an undertaking at this stage that, even if matters are identified that require legislation, the Government will necessarily be able to legislate in the 1981–82 Session. The matter has to be examined in the light of the consultations.
I should have liked to be able to say that extra finance will be available to fish farming in the coming months. I have faith in the future of the industry but I have given reasons why I cannot make any statement relating to finance now. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not trying to gloss over the fact that the Government have already made a considerable contribution to fish farming.
I have listed the bodies that give grants for the development of fish farming. I have mentioned that £1 million was given last year. We have taken legislative measures to remove some of the restrictions from which fish farming has suffered in recent years. This is welcomed very much by the fish farming industry.
I know that the fish farming industry has also welcomed the decision that the Government took last autumn that fish farms would not be subject to rating. That is probably one

of the biggest single financial advantages given to fish farming. It was an advantage that the Government were glad to be able to give. I am pleased that we have this enabling power. I hope that when financial circumstances permit we shall be able to extend greater encouragement to the fish farming industry.

Mr. Mason: The first draft of the review document has been in the Minister's hands since 19 February. The contents are obviously known. The right hon. Gentleman will know how controversial those contents will prove. Will he therefore lay down a time scale for consultation? Secondly, what will be the breadth of the inland fisheries review?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot recall immediately the exact context of my remarks in February. I think that I was probably referring to one specific part of the review. The House will appreciate that the review is in four parts. The last part has been in my hands for only a few weeks. The other parts of the review, including the one on fish farming, were in my hands earlier. We have waited to put together the entire review. Some of the officials in my Department have been involved in all the different parts of the review. It was not possible to take them all forward at exactly the same stage.
There will be a time scale for the consultations. The consultative document will specify the date on which we hope to receive the results of the consultation. Much will depend on the precise date on which the document is issued. I hope that the consultations will be completed by the autumn. Ministers will then be in a position to consider the representations that have been made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the review of inland fisheries. All matters relating to fish farming and fish diseases will come within inland fisheries. Salmon will also be included in that part of the review. We shall be covering both the roles of the regional water authorities and the future role of the sea fisheries committees. There is an overlapping of responsibilities, especially in estuaries.
I am concerned to ensure that our administration of fisheries, especially when there is overlapping, is effective. No decisions have been taken on changes that might take place or on administrative improvements. We are issuing a proper consultative document. We shall advance certain ideas and we shall state the problems. We shall then look forward to receiving representations from all those with interests before we reach decisions.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment Nos. 14 and 15 agreed to, both with Special Entry.

Clause 33

EXEMPTION FROM CONSERVATION LEGISLATION

Lords amendment: No. 16, leave out clause 33 and insert the following new clause—

"Exclusion of offences under conservation legislation?—

33.—(1) A person shall not be guilty of an offence mentioned in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act by reason of anything done or omitted by him in the course of fish farming if it is done or omitted under the authority of an exemption conferred by the Minister and in accordance with any conditions attached to the exemption.

(2) The Minister may by regulations confer general exemptions for the purposes of subsection (1) above, and such regulations may—



(a) make different provision for different methods of fish farming and for other different circumstances; and
(b) specify conditions to which the exemptions are subject.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) In the application of subsections (1) and (2) above to offences under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, "the Minister". means, in relation to the area of the Welsh Water Authority, the Secretary of State and, in relation to other areas to which the Act applies, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and in the application of those subsections to offences under enactments relating to sea fishing, "the Minister" means, in relation to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, in relation to Wales or Scotland, the Secretary of State concerned with fisheries in that country.

(5) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence mentioned in Part II of Schedule 4 to this Act to show that he believed on reasonable grounds that the fish with respect to which the offence is alleged to have been committed were produced by fish farming.

(6) In this section "fish farming" means the breeding, rearing or cultivating of fish (including shellfish) whether or not for the purpose of producing food for human consumption; but the reference in subsection (5) above to fish produced by fish farming does not include fish bred, reared or cultivated in captivity which have later been released to the wild."

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in this amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 24: leave out schedule 4 and insert the following new schedule—

"SCHEDULE 4

EXEMPTIONS FOR FISH FARMING PART I OFFENCES TO WHICH SECTION 33(1) OF THIS ACT APPLIES

Offences under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975

1. Any offence under section 2(2)(a) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (taking, killing or injuring, or attempting to take, kill or injure, unclean or immature fish).
2. Any offence under section 3 of that Act (restriction on shooting or working seine or draft net in certain waters and prohibition on use of certain nets).
3. Any offence under section 5(1) of that Act (prohibition on use of explosives, poison or electrical devices to take or destroy fish) relating to the use of a noxious substance or electrical device, and any offence under section 5(4) of that Act relating to the possession of such a substance or device.
4. Any offence under section 19 of that Act (fishing for, taking or killing or attempting to kill fish during close seasons or close times).
5. Any offence under section 27 of that Act (fishing for or taking fish without a licence or possession of equipment with intent to use it for an unlicensed purpose).
6. Any offence under section 28(7) of that Act (infringement of byelaws) consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made for a purpose mentioned in any of the following paragraphs of Schedule 3 to that Act—

(a) paragraph 21 or 25 (descriptions of nets and other instruments which may be used for taking fish and restrictions on their use);
(b) paragraph 23 or 24 (restrictions on carrying of certain nets);
(c) paragraph 26 (taking or removing fish from water without lawful authority);
(d) paragraph 28 (taking fish of less than prescribed size).

Offences related to sea fishing

7. Any offence consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made under section 4 of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act 1885 (byelaws prohibiting or regulating methods of fishing).

8. Any offence under section 6(1) of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act 1889 (prohibition on beam or otter trawling in certain areas) and any offence consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made under section 7(1) of that Act (power to prohibit beam or otter trawling in certain other areas).

9. Any offence under section 1 of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act 1909 of landing fish caught by beam or otter trawling within a prohibited area.

10. Any offence consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made under section 5 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (byelaws for the regulation of sea fishing).

11. Any offence under section 17 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 of taking an edible crab or landing a lobster in a condition prohibited by subsection (1) or (3) of that section.

12. Any offence under section 1(1) or (3) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (landing or carrying fish smaller than prescribed size).

13. Any offence under section 3(5) of that Act (contravention of order regulating nets and gear).

14. Any offence under section 4(3) or (9A) of that Act (contravention of order prohibiting fishing without licence and failure to return to sea fish caught in contravention of such a prohibition).

15. Any offence under section 4A(3) of that Act (contravention of order prohibiting trans-shipment of fish without licence).

16. Any offence under section 5(1) or (6) of that Act (contravention of order prohibiting fishing and failure to return to sea fish caught in contravention of such a prohibition).

17. Any offence under section 6 of that Act (landing or transshipping fish in contravention of order).

PART II

OFFENCES TO WHICH SECTION 33(5) OF THIS ACT APPLIES

Offences relating to freshwater fish and salmon

18. Any offence under section XI of the Solway Act 1804 (possessing, selling or offering or exposing to sale certain fish out of season, and certain fish at any time).

19. Any offence under section LXXIV of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1857 of wilfully selling, purchasing or possessing smolt, fry, or young brood or spawn.

20. Any offence under section X of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859 (possession during close season of fish taken or caught in river, and selling or offering for sale or exchange fish caught between 15th September and 14th February).

21. Any offence under section 3 of the Salmon Acts Amendment Act 1863 (exporting, or entering for export unclean or unseasonable salmon and salmon caught at a time when their sale is prohibited).

22. Any offence under section 20 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 of buying, selling, exposing for sale or having in possession unclean or unseasonable salmon.

23. Any offence under section 21 of that Act (buying, selling, exposing for sale or having in possession salmon taken in close season).

24. Any offence under section 1 of the Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Act 1902 of having possession of trout in close season.

25. Any offence under section 2 of the Trout (Scotland) Act 1933 (purchase, sale, exposing or consigning for sale, export or consigning for export trout under 8" or between 1st September and 31st March).

26. Any offence under section 2(2)(b) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (buying, selling, exposure for sale or possession of unclean or immature fish or parts of such fish).

27. Any offence under section 22(1) of that Act (buying, selling, exposure for sale or possession for sale of fish at prohibited times of year).

28. Any offence under subsection (3) of section 23 of that Act of entering for export or exporting fish contrary to subsection (I) of that section (unclean fish and fish caught at a time when their sale is prohibited).

Offences relating to sea fishing

29. Any offence under section 1 of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act 1909 of selling fish caught by beam or otter trawling within a prohibited area.

30. Any offence under section 16 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (sale, exposure for sale, buying for sale or consignment for the purpose of sale of oysters at prohibited times of year).

31. Any offence under section 17(1) of that Act of possessing, selling, exposing for sale, buying for sale or consigning for the purpose of sale an edible crab in a condition prohibited by that subsection.

32. Any offence under section 17(3) of that Act of selling, exposing or offering for sale, or possessing for the purpose of sale a lobster in a condition prohibited by that subsection.

33. Any offence under section 1(2) of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967 (selling, exposing or offering for sale, or possessing for the purpose of sale fish smaller than the prescribed size).

34. Any offence under section 2 of that Act (possession for use in the course of a business of fish prohibited from being sold under section 1(2) of that Act)."

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The House will note that clause 33 and schedule 4 have been completely redrafted since the Bill left the House. However, the main purpose has not changed. The clause provides powers to exempt fish farmers from specified offences which, while necessary for the conservation of wild fish, are unnecessary and restrictive in respect of farmed fish.
The complexities of the exemptions from the freshwater fisheries conservation legislation were so considerable that we considered it appropriate to deal with detailed exemptions by subordinate procedures. General exemptions will be introduced by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution. As I have said, the main purpose has not changed. We have merely changed the means by which we shall proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 17 agreed to.

New Clause

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 22(2) OF SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1967

Lords amendment: No. 18, after clause 44 insert the following new clause—
In subsection (2) of section 22 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967?

(a) in the definition of "the appropriate Minister" the words "and Wales" shall be omitted and after "Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" there shall be inserted "in relation to Wales, means the Secretary of State concerned with the sea fishing industry in Wales";
(b) in paragraph (a) after "Scotland" there shall be inserted "Wales";
(c) in paragraphs (b) and (c) for "the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "the Secretaries of State respectively" and after "Scotland" there shall be inserted "and Wales"."

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 25.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is nothing dramatically new in the amendment. In 1978 some fishery functions were transferred from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Secretary of State for Wales. Certain matters in respect of that transfer were overlooked in the earlier stages of the Bill. The functions to be exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales are made clear in conformity with what has already been agreed to and with established practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 20 agreed to.

Schedule 3

WHITE FISH AND HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD: CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS

Lords amendment No. 21 in page 39, line 30, leave out ("and").

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 22.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The amendment merely clarifies the powers of the Sea Fish Industry Authority in relation to the collection of the levy in one area. The provision was not clear in the original Bill and the lack of clarity came to light in subsequent stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 22 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 40, line 13, at beginning insert
As from the transfer date".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a formal amendment that provides a date on which the new authority takes over two functions, those of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board.

Mr. McQuarrie: The amendment refers to page 40, line 13 of the main Bill and seeks to insert
As from the transfer date".
That is a reasonable term to add. It does nothing more than ensure that such statutory functions of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are automatically transferred to the Sea Fish Industry Authority on the date when the two existing bodies cease to exist. As the industry has waited so many years for the Bill and the establishment of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, how much time will be required after Royal Assent to set up the new authority? The sooner that the Sea Fish Industry Authority is brought into being the better for the fishing industry generally. That is important in view of the wide-ranging powers that the new authority will have over the industry. How long will it take for the new authority to come into effect?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we have not wasted time in introducing the Bill. The proposal to establish a new authority has been outstanding for a considerable period. We have introduced the Bill in the second Session of this Parliament. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have facilitated the Bill. The transfer date itself does not tell us when the new authority is to be set up. That will be done by means of a commencement order. No date has been allocated but we wish to make the transfer as soon as the necessary administrative procedures have been completed. I cannot give a specific date, but I hope that the new body will be functioning later this year.

Mr. Strang: We are happy about the enactment of this legislation. We welcome the constructive manner in which


the Minister of State has addressed himself to various issues, not least the way in which he brought forward the appropriate amendments on klondiking. We believe that the Bill represents a significant potential advance for the industry. We hope that full advantage will be taken of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 25 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. ERNEST ARMSTRONG in the Chair]

Clause 1

DISQUALIFICATION OF CERTAIN OFFENDERS FOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'whether before or'.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the Bill such that it would contain no retrospective element. It would mean that anyone who was already imprisoned or detained, as the case may be, would not be affected should the Bill become an Act of Parliament.
The feeling always exists, certainly in the House, that retrospective legislation is not desirable. I cannot argue that it is unconstitutional as such, but it is interesting to note that retrospective penal legislation is forbidden by the European Convention on Human Rights.
I hope that I am not being too party political when I say that there are always objections from Conservative Members, certainly when they are in Opposition, to any form of retrospection. They say that it is undesirable and that the law should not be changed in such a way that it would apply to those who were involved before the passing of the Act.
It may be argued that since we are dealing with those who have been sentenced to imprisonment or detention we should not be over-concerned about this type of case. However, that is a weak argument, because the principle remains the same. I shall come back to that aspect in a moment.
We know, of course, that the purpose of the Bill is simply to prevent a hunger striker in Northern Ireland from standing in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election.

Mr. Michael Mates: The purpose of the Bill is to prevent any properly convicted criminal serving a sentence who cannot carry out the duties of a Member of Parliament from being elected to this place, whether in Fermanagh and South Tyrone or elsewhere.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) knows full well that had it not been for what happened in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election and the fact that another contest is to take place, there would be no Bill. The hon. Gentleman does not disagree, so basically I was right in saying what I did.
It is perhaps relevant to look at the position of the people who received special category status in Northern Ireland prisons up to 1976. Up to that time—I believe that it was March 1976—special category status existed, and it was then decided by the Government of the day that it should be phased out. I shall not go into the question whether it was desirable to phase it out. That, nevertheless, was the decision that was taken some five years ago.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—introduced the order to phase out special category status he said that no offence committed


before the order would mean that the person concerned would lose his special status. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—who, I believe, was one of the spokesmen for the Conservative Opposition on Northern Ireland matters—did not object. He made no comment on the fact that when special category status was being phased out in 1976 it was not done on a retrospective basis. Other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may have objected to it, but not the Conservative spokesman for the Opposition at that time.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is a matter on which I corresponded recently with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who positively informed me that no undertaking whatsoever was given that special category would not be withdrawn from those who were in possession of it at the time, when, for the future, it was phased out. Similar firm assurances have been given on the record by Her Majesty's Government that not only have they given no such undertaking but that they are not aware of any such undertaking in any form, having been given. That should be on the record.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) cannot disagree with the fact that when the order was being introduced by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland it was done on the basis that the order would not be applied retrospectively. Perhaps he would care to check the Hansard record.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I thought that there was a confusion in what he said. I apologise if it was a misunderstanding—but it is a misunderstanding that others might share—to the effect that an understanding was given or existed that special category would not be withdrawn from those who possessed it at the time. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that its termination referred to those convicted for offences committed after the cut-off date. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to get that matter clear on the record. It was on that point that he was good enough to allow me to intervene.

Mr. Winnick: This is one of the few occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman and I agree on a matter of substance. I shall refer to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. At present about 350 prisoners in Northern Ireland continue to enjoy special category status. The right hon. Gentleman has asked questions on this matter. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office said on 12 February this year—I believe that it was in reply to the right hon. Gentleman:
A retrospective alteration of those terms —
the terms to which I have just referred—
gives rise to far wider considerations".—[Official Report, 12 February 1981; Vol. 998, c. 977.]
He quoted and prayed in aid the Prime Minister who, apparently, had said the same. Thus, what I am proposing is not very different—if at all—from what was done when it was decided to do away with special category status.
The principle is important. The House should always thoroughly check whether it is right, when bringing forward a Bill in such a hurry and panic—as now—that it should apply retrospectively. I urge the Committee not to accept the argument that because we are dealing with a particular type of person the principle is not important.
The principle remains important, and it is right that the Committee should give serious consideration to my amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The amendment would frustrate one of the principal purposes of the Bill. Disqualification for membership of or nomination for election to the House of Commons would apply only in respect of prisoners of the relevant category who were convicted and sentenced after the taking effect of the Bill. It would thus allow all those who are presently serving sentences in any prison in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—if, later this evening, the House passes the amendment that will enlarge the ambit of the Bill—to be nominated and elected unless such a person, after the Bill is passed, receives a fresh conviction resulting in a prison sentence of more than a year.
The amendment is unacceptable. Let us take as an example—it is not too far-fetched—the case of someone serving a sentence of 14 or 20 years. That eligibility would extend for many, many years. It is that class of person whom the House, by a substantial majority last Monday, showed that it did not wish to be made use of in that way.
6 pm
I listened with care to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I agree with his strictures on the general principle against retrospective legislation. I dispute that it is retrospective legislation. We are not dealing with a vested interest or right; we are dealing with a category of persons who could become Members of Parliament if nominated and elected but who are not being deprived of a right already vested by virtue of legislation whose impact and effect is retrospective.
The Bill imposes a deprivation not on prisoners but on those outside, who will no longer be able to pervert the electoral process by nominating a prisoner as a candidate simply for their own propaganda ends. For those reasons, I advise the Committee not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is not my intention to detain the Committee for long. The Government are missing the point of the amendment. Indeed, they are missing the point about the opposition to the Bill as a whole. The legislation will go against the principle of retrospection that we usually apply to our legislation. It also seeks to alter existing arrangements in a way that will give the terrorists the political victory that the Government are seeking to avoid. We discussed on Second Reading—I do not intend to go into further detail tonight—the extent to which the tidying-up process—as the Government regard the Bill—gives an enormous propaganda victory to the forces of violence.
The Bill is against tradition. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke about the special category prisoners still in Northern Ireland. A date was set, and an indication was given that someone convicted of an offence after a certain date would go to the H-blocks—they are probably the best prison in Western Europe—but that if someone was convicted before the said date he would be entitled to special category status. That was a clear sign that there would be no alteration of the position that existed at that time. The Bill takes away a right that someone had under the law. Whether that right should or should not have been given, whether abused or used correctly, or whether used by "Godfathers" outside


for propaganda purposes, it was still something attached to his position and status. We are now taking away that right retrospectively.
I do not for one moment suggest that someone in the high command of a terrorist organisation, on either side of the dividing line with the Six Counties, will say "Oh dear, I shall not do that dreadful act because I may fail to be nominated as a Member of a Parliament". That will not be the heaviest matter on the scales when someone decides on a course of action. It may be as well if it were, but that is not very likely.
It is bad enough to give the terrorists a propaganda victory by saying that they can no longer stand for Parliament, especially when we have urged them to use the democratic process to achieve their aims, but to apply the legislation retrospectively is a foolish and ultimately dangerous course of action.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out
'and whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere' and insert 'in the United Kingdom'.
This is a probing amendment. I am not sure what the Government mean by the term "or elsewhere", which appears in the clause. It states
A person found guilty of one or more offences (whether before or after the passing of this Act and whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere), and sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year, shall be disqualified for membership of the House of Commons while detained anywhere in the United Kingdom".
The term "or elsewhere" should be explained to the House. Where is "or elsewhere"? Under what circumstances will those who have been
sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year
be detained in the United Kingdom?
I do not understand the meaning of that term. The only possibility of its arising would be in the case of an extradition arrangement, or where someone has been convicted of an offence outside the United Kingdom but is brought to Britain to serve his sentence. Is that likely to be the case? I do not know, I do not understand the phrase "or elsewhere".

Mr. Mayhew: I understand the way in which the hon. Gentleman has moved the amendment, and the reasons for it. I can explain the point of difficulty quite simply. The amendment excludes from disqualification for membership of, and for nomination for election to the House of Commons, prisoners who were not convicted in the United Kingdom. It thus excludes persons sentenced in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man who are sent to Britain to serve their sentences, as is often the case. It also excludes prisoners transferred to Britain at the request of one of our dependent territories, after being sentenced for a serious offence that carries a substantial term of imprisonment. That is not a large class of people. It probably numbers fewer than 50 in our prisons at any one time. That is where "or elsewhere" is.
There is another consideration. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government intend to move an amendment later this evening to extend the provisions of the Bill to prisoners detained in prisons in the Republic of Ireland. If the amendment now under discussion were carried, its effect on the later amendment would be that the latter would extend disqualification only to those prisoners

detained in the Republic of Ireland who had been convicted in the United Kingdom. It would not apply to prisoners in the Republic of Ireland who had been convicted there. Clearly, that would substantially undermine the purpose of extending the Bill to cover prisoners in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury): I understand the last point that was made by the Minister of State, but my hon. Friend's amendment was moved to improve the Bill as it now stands and not to take account of another amendment, which will be moved later in our proceedings. The Minister of State referred to the class that is intended to be covered. He said that it was extremely small. It consists basically of people who have been convicted in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and those who have returned to serve their sentences in this country under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
It seems a curious way to draft the instrument, if it is intended to cover two specific and narrow classes, to use words like "elsewhere" meaning elsewhere in the entire world. It obviously was not intended to cover anywhere else in the world; it was to cover the two specific classes referred to.
If the Committee will allow him, can the Minister of State help us a little more? Why, when the Government first drafted the Bill intending to include people convicted in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, did they exclude people convicted in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and imprisoned there? We shall come to that point more generally later on, but it would be useful to have a reply to that narrow point now. If, as they say they did, the Government intended to cover people convicted in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and held in prison in the United Kingdom, why did not they intend to cover people convicted in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man and held there?

Mr. Mayhew: The reason for the way in which the Bill was initially drafted was that it is the normal practice for anyone serving any substantial sentence and convicted in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man to be sent to this country. Therefore, it was not felt necessary specifically to embrace those islands in the ambit of that part of the clause. There is nothing more to it than that. It is desirable for the avoidance of doubt that matters should be expressed fully.
I shall expand on that a little, as the matter has attracted more interest. In Guernsey and the Isle of Man, persons sentenced to more than one year's imprisonment are transferred to this country to serve their sentence. In Jersey, those sentenced to more than three years' imprisonment are transferred here. In addition, people who have committed grave crimes in one of our dependent territories and who need to be kept in secure conditions may be transferred here to serve their sentence not under the Fugitive Offenders Act but under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884.
We are dealing only with people who are serving a sentence in a United Kingdom prison or, as it may subsequently be in the Republic, a prison in the Republic of Ireland. The wider scope of the Bill in terms of the place of sentence will in practice bring in only those who have been sentenced in the islands to which I have just referred.

Mr. Cunningham: The first reason given by the Minister is pretty daft. Most of the people sentenced in the


Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to more than a year's imprisonment may come to the United Kingdom, but it is pretty silly to construct a Bill in such a way that if they happen to go to a prison in which people can be kept for more than 12 months and the practice to do so is altered, we have to go through the statute book amending it. However, that is an academic point, because it will be embraced in the later amendment that the Government are moving. I believe that it was a silly idea in the first place.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: The explanation of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister came somewhat as a surprise, because some of us felt that "elsewhere" was intended to cover the Republic of Ireland rather than the group of fewer than 50 people referred to. It was on the basis of that understanding, amongst other reasons, that some of us pressed for the Government amendment on detention. One accepts everything that the Minister said, but, so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind, can he confirm that "elsewhere", as well as covering those minor cases, will cover the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. McNamara: Confusion was confounded to a degree in what the Minister had to say. If "elsewhere" was "elsewhere", it would be also the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, one would not need to have the amendment standing in the name of the Secretary of State and some of his hon. Friends. However, if "elsewhere" was not "elsewhere", we have the British Isles or the Republic of Ireland. It seems to me that "elsewhere" is an all-embracing phrase, which goes beyond the British Islands—some of us might wish to refer to them nostalgically as the Celtic Islands—to other spheres and other areas.
6.15 pm
The Minister has not dealt with a matter that will come up for debate later on. If "elsewhere" covers the Republic of Ireland, how shall we confirm and certificate the fact that people have or have not been sentenced? What will be the form and order? How shall we establish whether we would regard such a sentencing as being part of a proper system of going about matters? At the moment, "elsewhere" can mean Heaven or Hell—I am not sure which. In view of the later amendment, I am certain that the phrase is not worth having, or that we should delete "United Kingdom" at this stage and put in the phrase that appears in the later amendment.
British Isles or the Republic of Ireland".
I shall not press my amendment to a vote, because I believe that the Bill is such nonsense anyway that one addition does not matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'one year' and insert 'five years'.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it may be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'one year' and insert 'ten years'.

Mr. Lyons: This is a probing amendment, designed to elicit the reasons why the Government are so fixed upon a period of over one year rather than some other period.
If a person has been sent to a prison for a serious crime, it may seem self-evident that he should not be allowed to

stand for Parliament. It may also be argued that because convicted prisoners are disqualified from voting while in prison they should also be disqualified from standing for Parliament while in prison. The contrary argument is that in a democracy it is not right to limit the voters' power to choose whom they want as their Member of Parliament.
This week, by a large majority, the House voted for the first proposition, but it was clear that there was unease on both sides of the House about the blanket nature of the prohibition proposed by the Bill. The Bill might catch people who, prior to 1967, could not have been disqualified because they committed a misdemeanour rather than a felony. We survived without difficulty when prisoners who committed misdemeanours and were imprisoned were not disqualified from sitting in the House.
One of the worrying things about the present drafting of the Bill is that someone might be disqualified from becoming a Member of Parliament when he had virtually finished his sentence and, were he to be elected for the majority of the remainder of Parliament, he could serve his constituents in the normal way.
The Bill's underlying purpose is presumably to ensure that anyone who has committed a grave crime cannot stand for election as or become a Member of Parliament. The question is whether major criminals are likely to be given sentences of just over 12 months. A man of principle could be sentenced for an offence that many people would not condemn him for, or for beliefs that may become accepted in a relatively short time, but a man serving more than five years' imprisonment is likely to have committed a serious offence and normally, although not always, one of violence.
The Government's wish to ensure that a person who has committed a serious offence shall not become an hon. Member would carry more weight within the general ambit of the Bill than a provision that the same should apply to someone sentenced, for example, to 13 months' imprisonment. It is difficult to believe that a person convicted of a serious offence would receive a sentence of only 13 or 18 months. The amendment invites the Government to consider a longer period.
It is possible that a person serving a six-year sentence would stand for Parliament just before he was released, but that is less likely if a long sentence has been given, particularly in view of the parole system, the likely changes in it, and remission. With remission, a 12-month sentence will last for only eight months--or less if the man has been in custody for a considerable time prior to sentence.
The Bill is presumably designed to prevent persons who have committed serious crimes from standing for election to the House, so its provisions should be aimed at that and at no other result. That is my aim in wanting to change the wording from "more than one year" to "more than five years". The suggestion does not undermine the Bill's basic principle. It is a compromise, and may have weaknesses, but I cannot understand why the Government want to stand firm on one year. It surely cannot be simply because that was the length of time for felonies prior to 1967.
The Bill would catch all who have committed murder. All sentences not defined in a term of years are already caught by the wording of the clause. We are dealing only with persons who are to be or have been sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment. By introducing a provision that those with no defined sentence in terms of years shall be


disqualified, it appears that people who have committed murders, in particular, will not be able to stand for or sit in Parliament. Then we come down from what amounts to life sentences to sentences of 13 months' imprisonment, so there appears to be a serious disparity.
Why have the Government picked on one year rather than a period designed to catch only serious criminals?

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) for the way that he moved his amendment. He was absolutely right when he said that it was not without weakness, but I understand entirely why he moved it. If one is frank, the same can be said about almost any formula that one might choose to meet the broad objects of the Bill, which were fully discussed earlier this week. I have never pretended that it was possible to meet fully the three objectives that one tries to meet in legislation—justice, practicality and doing what is necessary within a reasonably short time.
We adopted a period of 12 months in part because we consider that it would not be right to visit the sanctions of the Bill upon a prisoner serving a very much shorter sentence than that. The provision would then catch people who would not be out of the running for a significant time and who probably would not have been sentenced for even a mildly serious offence. In these matters one can speak only in the broadest generalities, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
If one is talking of somebody sentenced in these days to 12 months' imprisonment, one is speaking of somebody who, as I tried to express it the other night, was at least fairly criminally culpable and who had been sentenced to a fairly serious term of imprisonment.
There is also the precedent of 12 months. I entirely take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. Before 1967 it was possible to be in prison for longer than 12 months if sentenced for a misdemeanour and not be caught by the provisions of the Forfeiture Act, but 12 months seems to us to be about the right dividing line. It is to be observed that under the Forfeiture Act, if a person was guilty, albeit as a felon, of an offence for which he was sentenced to hard labour, any period of hard labour attracted the provisions of the Act.
I cannot give a more satisfying answer than to say that the line has to be drawn, and in our judgment a period five years would be much too long. It would then be possible for a whole constituency to be disenfranchised for what might be very nearly the length of a Parliament, which would be to defeat one of the principal objectives of the Bill.
The amendments would mean that the Bill did nothing to prevent the candidature of prisoners who had committed offences so serious that the courts had imposed what would be in these days a substantial sentence. Accordingly, although I acknowledge that there may be hard cases, and cases that may appear to be a little difficult to justify, if a line has to be drawn to meet those very unusual circumstances, a period of 12 months is about right. I am afraid that I cannot put it more satisfyingly than that.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister says that five years—10 years in my amendment—is not acceptable because constituents would be disenfranchised, but that does not deal with the most important issue of principle—whether the electorate wish to vote for a candidate. If they wish to

vote for a person in prison they should be able to do so, knowing that he would have no qualification to sit in the House.
The Bill introduces such a major and, I believe. wrong element in the way in which nominations can be refused for election to the House, that I believe that the disqualifying term of imprisonment should be longer than 12 months. I should be willing to accept five years and ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but the Minister does not agree.
I cannot see the Bill as something apart from the hunger strike and the current situation in Northern Ireland, but in the wider context a person who has received a sentence longer than 12 months may be utterly convinced of and insist on his innocence. Let us take the example of a person who is so convinced of his innocence that he wants to be in a position to put his case to the electorate, perhaps in the constituency where he lived before his imprisonment. He would have been able to do so previously, even though his chances of being elected were remote. That could have been the position of George Davis, although he was serving a prison sentence longer than 10 years. I am illustrating the fact that we are again eroding the democratic right of a person, whether or not he is in prison, to stand for election to the House of Commons.
6.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said on Second Reading that if the Government gave in to the clamour of some of their more diehard Back Benchers on anti-trade union legislation—one hopes that it will not happen—under the Industrial Relations Act 1971 trade unionists, who are not criminals in the accepted sense of the word, could be sent to prison charged with conspiracy, and so on. Having been sent to prison, they would be keen to proclaim their innocence and to campaign against having been sent to prison.
It is interesting to note that the father of one of the leaders—I had better not say "the leader", because apparently his party does not have one—the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) was sent to prison for a period of less than 12 months following the 1926 strike. There was no shame about it. Some would say that it was a matter of honour. But under provisions similar to those in the Bill, if that gentleman had wanted to stand as a candidate for Parliament he would have been disqualified from so doing if his term of imprisonment had been longer than 12 months. The Bill introduces such a major new element into our electoral law that if a person is to be disqualified from standing for election to the House of Commons he should be serving a longer term than 12 months.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I did not find the Minister's reply entirely satisfactory, although it was entirely courteous. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'United Kingdom' and insert
`British Islands or the Republic of Ireland'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:


No. 7, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.
No. 9, in page 1, line 10, after 'Kingdom', insert
'or the Republic of Ireland'.
No. 10, in page 1, line 10, after 'Kingdom',
insert 'or elsewhere in the British Isles'.
No. 11, in page 1, line 10, after 'Kingdom',
insert 'or elsewhere in the British Isles or the Republic of Ireland'.

Mr. Whitelaw: The reasons for this amendment were well rehearsed on Second Reading, and I do not propose to go over all that ground again. My hon. Friends urged upon me the need to make this amendment. I would certainly have accepted the amendments that they put down rather than table one of my own, but I was advised that their amendments were slightly defective. My amendment expresses in terms exactly what they want.
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the disqualification for election to, nomination for and membership of the House of Commons to cover persons imprisoned or ordered to be detained for more than 12 months in the Republic of Ireland. When we originally drafted the Bill I took the view that we were right to confine our attentions to those prisons within our control, particularly as the nomination procedure, which is important from the Government's point of view, and we believe right for the Bill, would be more easily carried through if it covered only prisons under our control. However, the feelings were so strong that I thought it right to give that point to my hon. Friends. I think we can rely on the help, in so far as they are able to give it, of the Government of the Republic. On that basis it is reasonable to make the amendment.
At the same time, we have, for completeness, in answer to a request made on Second Reading by the phrase "the British Islands" extended the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I believe that the House as a whole, including those hon. Members who did not like the principle of the Bill, thought is sensible to include this provision. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for what they said at the time, and I hope that I have met the point that they made.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I have little to say about the amendment that I did not say on Monday. However, two or three things should be said, both about its contents and about the way in which it has been brought forward.
It is now clear that without the amendment the Bill would be nonsense, I want to make it plain to the Home Secretary that those of us who disapprove of the Bill in principle care not whether it is nonsense or not. I drew his attention to the absurdity of passing the Bill without this amendment simply because I believe that it is the first duty of the Government not to present unworkable Bills to the House. It is equally their duty, when they have discovered that Bills are unworkable, to report that fact to the House, rather than have the information dragged out of them like an aching tooth, which is what happened in the House on Monday afternoon.
The change that the Home Secretary has made makes the Bill no more acceptable in principle, but in some ways it may make it more workable in practice in achieving his objectives. It may make it possible for him to argue that the Government are being appropriately tough on the

people of whom he disapproves, but I wonder whether it will lay the Government open to any less ridicule when the entire episode ends, when the by-election has taken place, with the nominee whom the Government fear not being put into the lists, but another nominee, whose candidature will be wholly legal even under the Bill, fighting in the same terms and in the same way as the Government are attempting to avoid.
I come now to the practicalities of the Bill. I suppose that I must accept that the Home Secretary is moving the amendment because feelings were so strong on Monday afternoon. The corollary of that is that had feelings not been so strong he would not have moved the amendment, and we should have had a Bill that was nonsense.
I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for something that he has not admitted this afternoon, that had there not been a voice raised in favour of the amendment he would eventually have realised that to make his scheme work something like this had to be proposed. I understand why he was reluctant about it initially. We are now to have the extraordinary state of affairs that the Government of a foreign Power—admittedly a friendly Power, and I hope an increasingly friendly Power—have the ability to disqualify a man or a woman from standing for election in the United Kingdom.
The Home Secretary said that he was relying on the Government of the Irish Republic, in so far as it was possible for them to help, to provide the information necessary to enable disqualification to take place. I hope that, with the opportunity that the Committee provides for a speaker to address it more than once, the Home Secretary will tell us in some detail how he imagines the power will be exercised by the Government of the Republic and what procedures will take place when it is suspected that a nominee is not properly qualified.
What will happen when a returning officer has a suspicion that a nominee is a man who is sentenced under the terms of the Bill and is serving his sentence in the Republic? It is clear what would happen in the United Kingdom—undesirable though we would imagine it to be. When a man is incarcerated in a foreign jail, what does the returning officer do? How does he find out the information within the two days? Who asks for it and who provides it?
I see a little activity on the Conservative Benches. We always say that. We often say it with the Home Secretary, because we realise that he does not know this kind of thing until the information is spoonfed to him. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] Perhaps the Home Secretary has a reputation for command of detail that I have not recognised over the past few years. If that is so, I withdraw my allegation unreservedly. I am not insulting the Home Secretary. That would be out of order. I am describing him, which is wholly proper in our debates.
However the information comes to the Home Secretary, I hope that he will go into the detail of how the suspicion that a person is in prison in Ireland and thus disqualified from election is actually confirmed and the disqualification made legal.
If the man or woman involved chooses to challenge the disqualification, how will the United Kingdom court ensure that the information sent by a foreign Power about that persons's parliamentary status is appropriate, right, and correctly passed from one Government to another?
These are matters of some concern and consequence. I believe that for the first time in our history we are giving to a foreign Power the opportunity to determine who may


or may not stand at a British parliamentary election. I believe that that is wrong in principle, just as I believe that the Bill is wrong in principle. Nevertheless, the details of how it will be worked out are essential if the Committee is to examine the matter properly. I hope that the Home Secretary will take an early opportunity to describe what those details will be.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I should just like to tell my right hon. Friend how pleased I am that the Government have brought forward this amendment, which I think deals with the problem that some of us were concerned about on Monday. I was very pleased that he made it quite clear that he was happy to receive amendments from the House and to discuss them.
I ask for an explanation of a small point. I notice that the Government amendment talks about the
British Islands or the Republic of Ireland.
I have heard the expression "British Isles", which I understand includes the Republic of Ireland. If we are talking about the British Islands, is that something different from the British Isles—and is Northern Ireland, which is not a complete island on its own, considered to be part of the British Islands?

Mr. McNamara: I wish to follow some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in his gentle chiding of the Home Secretary.
It seems to me that it is not only a question of a foreign Power having a veto over the question of who should be a candidate in an election. There is more to it than that. There is now an accelerated timetable for nominations.
Let us take the example of a person born, say, in Penrith, who is serving a sentence of more than a year in the Republic of Ireland for some strange offence, such as smuggling contraceptives into the Republic. He seeks to stand for election in the United Kingdom. His nomination forms go through, because this is a great matter of civil liberties in the Republic, people want to establish a right, and so on. His nomination form therefore goes in correctly. The returning officer is a little suspicious, however, and wonders about the nomination. To whom does he go, and for what information? Does he go to the British Government and say that he believes that the person is a prisoner in the Republic? Do the British Government then contact the Government of the Republic, who contact the governor of the appropriate prison to find out whether the person is there, and for what purpose?
6.45 pm
A further important question then arises. In a country with a written constitution there is the question whether its Government would be entitled so to endanger the civil rights of a citizen of another country as to communicate that information to another Government. If the person concerned sought an injunction against the Government of the Republic to prevent their passing that information—if they had that information—to the United Kingdom Government and thence to the appropriate returning officer, what would the position then be?
The situation created by this proposal is nonsense. It depends upon two things. First, it depends upon good will and the proper procedures being followed to establish whether a potential candidate is in fact incarcerated, and has been rightly convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detained for a period that qualifies under the legislation. All that has to be got through.
A second very important matter arises in relation to the Government amendment, which demonstrates even further the nonsense of the case. The Home Secretary wishes to show himself to be tough and to give way to pressure from his own Back Benchers over the position of people convicted in the Republic of Ireland of what one would presumably describe as the equivalent of our terrorist offences. Other offences are covered, but basically the provision is aimed, as we all know, at people convicted of terrorist offences. It is, of course, possible—indeed, it is highly likely—that people could be convicted and sentenced in other countries for offences appertaining to the present distress in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. They would not be caught by the Bill.
Let us take again our mythical citizen from Penrith. Let us suppose that he seeks to smuggle arms from the Republic of the United States to the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. He is convicted under United States law and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or more. He would be allowed to be a candidate. I believe that nothing could be more emotive in the Irish and Irish-American situation than for a citizen of the Republic or of the Six Counties, imprisoned in the United States of America on a gun-running charge, to stand as a candidate in an election. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that happening. This shows the complete and utter nonsense of what is being done in this legislation.
The same could apply in Australia, New Zealand or Canada. A person might be smuggling arms from Canada to the UDA. That is equally possible, and highly likely. Again, such a person would not be caught by the legislation. If we are to experiment in partial justice of this nature, the whole matter is shown to be the nonsense that it is. People in that situation would qualify and would be able to stand.
One could go even further. Our mythical man from Penrith might be a professional terrorist who supports the PLO or some other terrorist organisation such as GRAPO or ETA. He may commit an offence in Spain, Portugal, the Lebanon, Egypt or Israel. Yet he could still be a candidate. He is barred only if he has been sentenced in the Republic of Ireland. The original intention of the legislation was to discriminate not against people convicted of terrorism or against hunger strikers but against anybody sentenced to a period of imprisonment longer than one year. The effect of seeking to close this loophole in this way, however, is not only to give a propaganda victory to the IRA but to create a political farce, for that is what it amounts to.
If someone of Irish or United Kingdom citizenship is sentenced in the United States, he can be a candidate. The same applies if he is sentenced in Canada, Australia and elsewhere. In that respect, we have not closed the door. We have not even half shut it. In many ways we have created a bigger bogy than the one that we have tried to get rid of—a bogy that is more emotive, capable of raising more funds, and liable to cause more embarrassment to the Government.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has asked me to be brief, so that he can speak. I am tempted to protract my remarks, but I shall resist that temptation scrupulously.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) could have avoided detaining the


Committee by his boorish exhibition of discourtesies against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has responded to the desire from various quarters of the House to deal with the problem of prisoners without the immediate jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the amendment, which renders nugatory my own amendment, No. 10. Some hon. Members have asked about terrorists who are apprehended, tried and convicted beyond the jurisdiction of these islands. Some IRA men have committed outrages in other NATO countries, but I believe that such cases are few in number, if there are any at all, and neither the Government's amendment nor my own deals with such contingencies. However, my right hon. Friend may wish to say something about that.
Both amendments are confined to the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I have used the term "British Isles" in the conventional geographical sense and not in the strict sense of the definition. I mean the definition at present in force, although I understand that formerly the term "British Isles" comprehended the whole island of Ireland.
The Republic of Ireland has a unique relationship with the United Kingdom. It is within the common travel area, which also comprehends the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which have already been discussed. In addition, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are menaced by the same terrorism.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked how the requisite information would be obtained. I believe there to be the closest co-operation between the main part of the security forces in the United Kingdom and the Republic. In that respect the problem posed by the right hon. Gentleman was probably more theoretical than actual. No doubt my right hon. Friend will give an authoritative reply. I conclude by welcoming the amendment.

Mr. James A. Dunn: The Home Secretary introduced the amendment by saying that he was "advised". It is a pity that such advice was not given when the Bill was drafted, because it might not have been the nonsense it was when it was brought before the House on Second Reading.
In my opinion, the Bill was in default to the extent that it was open to ridicule. However, the amendment brings the measure back into the realm of common sense. I support the intention behind it, and if it goes to a vote I shall vote in favour of it. Before it reaches that stage, however, I should like to make a few comments about it.
In our discussions on earlier amendments we may have lost an opportunity to deal with the degree of offence that would disqualify a person. Perhaps we should have listed such offences in a schedule, although there may be difficulties about that, because of a recent decision by the House not to maintain a clear distinction between a misdemeanour and a felony. I am not an expert on these matters, but I understand the complexities and problems involved.
The amendment deals with a problem that has caused many people grave concern and offence. I am among those who felt that the way in which the candidate was chosen at the recent by-election, and the way in which the campaign was fought, caused a lot of offence. Some of my hon. Friends take the opposite point of view, based upon

their appreciation of democracy. My opinion does not coincide with theirs, but I offer no apology for that, because I hold these views strongly.
Had the Bill contained a schedule of offences, some of the doubts that have been expressed would probably be resolved. In addition, some of my own doubts would be answered. I would be equally offended if someone were sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for a civil offence because of non-violent opposition to something that was felt to be an imposition upon him.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) recently warned that a prison sentence on conviction could determine whether at a subsequent date a person could qualify as a candidate. There could well be favoured sons who might catch the eye of those on the Bench passing sentence, and there could well be those who would not be regarded with such favour. To that extent, I have grave reservations about the 12 months sentence, as well as some of the consequences that might flow from the amendment.
There could well be problems in verifying whether a person was disqualified because of imprisonment in the Republic of Ireland. However, I do not believe that such problems would be as severe as some of my hon. Friends suggested. They object to this measure in principle, but I have never heard them object to the way in which undesirable aliens are refused entry into the United Kingdom because of an alleged or known offence, and that applies just as much to people coming from the Republic of Ireland or the United States.
People come into the United Kingdom who have been imprisoned in the past. They can be stopped on entry, and if the authorities feel that they are undesirable they can be sent back to their country of origin. Therefore, I cannot understand some of the objections that are now put forward about candidature in a parliamentary election within the United Kingdom to represent people of the United Kingdom.
The only veto that can be exercised by foreign Governments is that of a known conviction and imprisonment, which may disqualify someone under the provisions of the Bill. However, taking into account the point that I made about undesirable aliens, the challenge to the amendment is not as serious as some of my colleagues have tried to make out.
If the loophole had not been closed, ridicule would have been heaped upon the House, upon the Government and, indeed, upon the Home Office, resulting from the ill-advised draftsmanship of the Bill. Much worse than that, there could have been dire consequences for innocent people.
Therefore, belated though the amendment is, it is welcome.

7 pm

Mr. Mates: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for having tabled the amendment. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkwood (Mr. Hattersley) was right to say that we shall depend upon the good will of the Republic of Ireland for the proper operation of the part of the clause that deals with the disqualification of people serving sentences in the Republic.
I do not suppose that any sovereign Government can, in advance, give a blanket guarantee that all will be well if and when the particular moment arises, but we have a


very close relationship with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and we have no possible reason in this House to doubt that if and when a request has to be made it will be answered promptly and in the most friendly fashion. No one can ask for more than that. There is, of course, an element of trust, and that is something that we must have.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned—as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) —that we are putting in the hands of a foreign Government the power to veto the qualifications for membership of this House. It is not so much a foreign Government, as a foreign judiciary. I am sure that the Irish judicial system is as independent of the Irish Government as our judicial system is of our Government. I cannot conceive that in passing sentence any judge in the Republic of Ireland would be influenced by the ridiculous concept that if the prisoner were given more than 12 months he could not in due course stand for a parliamentary by-election in a foreign country. I do not think that we need bother about that. I heartily welcome the amendment and commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Winnick: There has been no explantion of why the Bill was framed in the way in which it came before the House on Monday. If the Home Secretary is so keen on the amendment—as apparently he is—why was the matter not dealt with before Second Reading? Is it to be assumed that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had not made his valid point, and if there had not been a clamour from Conservative Back Benchers, there would have been no support for the amendment proposed today by the Home Secretary?
One must work on the assumption that the Home Secretary read the Bill before Second Reading. He was perfectly aware of what has been described as a loophole. It seems strange that the Bill should have been presented to us in the form in which it appeared on Monday, if there was a feeling that it might require to be amended in the way that is now proposed. Surely the Bill should have been examined more thoroughtly beforehand. If the point at issue is so important, why was it not included in the Bill originally? I do not believe that it is such an important point; indeed, the amendment only serves to make the Bill worse that it is already.
Relations between the British Government and the Irish Republic have improved in the recent past. The Prime Minister has spoken about the talks that she had with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. She said that various matters were under discussion. Inevitably, the question that comes to mind is: what consultations have taken place on this issue with the Irish Government? As has been said, we are discussing here the involvement of a foreign Power.
Conservative Members sometimes give the impression that Ireland remains a sort of colony of the United Kingdom, whereas we are dealing with a completely independent country—a country that has been independent for many years. It has a special relationship with the United Kingdom. Its citizens can live here without restriction, and so on, I hope that that feature will continue for many years; indeed, I hope that it will be permanent. If we are to involve a foreign Power in a matter of this kind, the Minister concerned ought to tell us what consultations, if any, have taken place on it. The Second Reading of the Bill was on Monday. Was there

consultation before Monday? If not, what consultation has taken place since Monday? No such informantion has been given to us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was right to give the illustration of those who gun-run for the IRA and who are detained in the United States. Why should not the United States be included in the amendment? I suppose that the answer AS that it is too large a Power to involve in a Bill of this kind. The assumption is that we can deal with the Irish Republic in this context, but not with the United States. If there were a loophole originally, it will remain, even if the amendment is passed, because although the clause will include the Irish Republic, it will not include other countries, such as the United States, where people could be held in prison who would be qualified to stand in British parliamentary elections. Obviously, there will still be a loophole in the Bill.
This is a panic measure. The Bill has not been properly looked at and, despite the proposed amendment, it remains as inadequate as it was on Monday.

Dr. Mawhinney: The worst aspects of the Opposition's attitude to the Bill are emerging in this short debate. They asked that a loophole be closed, and when the necessary amendment is brought before the House they complain that an amendment has had to be moved in order to close the loophole. That is an indefensible position to adopt.

Mr. McNamara: It is not a question of closing the loophole. We do not want the Bill at all.

Dr. Mawhinney: I shall come shortly to the comments of the hon. Gentleman, which are a further illustration of the Opposition's behaviour in the debate.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said on Second Reading that he would listen to the House and act accordingly. That is what he has done. That is why I am happy to have had the opportunity to sign the amendment that is before the Committee. The amendment will greatly strengthen the Bill. We have already been told by certain people that, had the loophole not been closed, they would have taken advantage of it in order to run a Provisional IRA candidate from Portlaoise. That would have made nonsense of the measure. Obviously, the amendment is to be welcomed.
The amendment is realistic. After listening on Monday to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and after listening today to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) one might be forgiven for thinking that they live in an academic world that does not impinge on the realities of life. The reality is that the vast majority of people in this country want the Bill to be passed. They want to see the loophole closed, because they are offended and outraged by the fact that people who are dedicated to destroying the democratic foundations of this country—and who do not hesitate to use violence, terror and the bomb—should be permitted to be involved in the democratic process and to seek representation in this House, which they despise.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman spoke about: the majority of the people wanting the Bill. He may be right. he may be wrong. Perhaps all the difficulties have not been explained to the majority of people. Does he not accept


that, after what has happened in the past 12 years, it is likely that the majority of people in Britain want to see a different future for the Six Counties from that which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to argue his case if he cares to join in the debate next week.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central argued that there was no distinction between the Republic of Ireland and any other country, and that what applied in the amendment to the Republic ought in all conscience to apply to any other country. That shows the lack of reality and unwillingness to face facts that characterised his contribution.
The amendment is necessary because the Republic of Ireland recognises politically motivated activity. It is not possible to extradite from the Republic to the United Kingdom anyone who stands up in a court in the Republic and says "My Lord, I did it for political reasons". He is immediately protected. In that sense, the South grants to those people a measure of political status which we do not.
If that were not the case, and if 60 years of history did not show that the relationship between some of the people in the Republic and some of the people in the North was the basis for terrorism, and if the border did not exist as a safe haven for people who commit crimes in the North and then disappear across it, only then might the argument that the hon. Member for Hull, Central was making have some validity. Because he ignores all the realities of life, his argument has no validity.
I appreciate the prompt way in which my right hon. Friend has responded and moved the amendment, and I give it my fullhearted support.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I wholeheartedly support the Home Secretary and the amendment. I congratulate him on the speed with which he responded to the expression of opinion in the House earlier this week.
I ask the people who have criticised the Home Secretary for moving the amendment to cast their minds back to the time when they were Ministers in a previous Administration, or supported that Administration, to see how many Government amendments they moved to correct faulty legislation. No one who has been in that position should criticise the Home Secretary for responding so promptly and sensibly to the will of the House.
The old argument has been advanced that the Government are moving the amendment to try to save themselves from embarrassment. That is not so. The measure is necessary to deal with an affront to the people of this country. The affront arises from the fact that people who have been convicted of crimes associated with the murder of British soldiers should have the right to stand for election to this Parliament. There is no question of saving the Government or anyone else from embarrassment. The embarrassment should be felt by those who do not support this attempt to eradicate that affront and the dishonouring of soldiers who have given their lives.
7.15 pm
Various dodges have been suggested for circumventing the will of the House in supporting the amendment and

passing the legislation. I have no doubt that members of the IRA will draw comfort from some of those suggestions. They may not have thought of them. Gunmen do not always have an endowment of brains as well as violence. No doubt they will read our debate with interest and welcome the dodges that have been suggested to them for circumventing the law.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke about foreign Powers. The Republic of Ireland is a unique foreign Power. Its citizens have the right of entry and abode in the United Kingdom and, arising from that right, the right to stand for election. If my right hon. Friend really believes that the Republic of Ireland should be treated like any other foreign country he should take that argument to its logical conclusion and say that the right of entry and abode and the ability to stand for election should be removed from citizens of the Republic of Ireland. I know that he will not, and we all know why. If he argues in that way he should take the argument to its logical conclusion and withdraw those rights.
I do not view the Republic of Ireland as being a foreign Power in the same way as I view all other countries. There is a unique historical link between the two countries. There are sound reasons why we should not treat the Republic as a foreign Power and why we should look to the Government of the Republic of Ireland for the fullest co-operation in the operation of the Bill and in giving effect to the amendment. My belief is that we shall get it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that the Bill and the amendment were complete nonsense. I do not believe that; nor will many people in the working men's clubs and pubs. We are seeking, with our best endeavours, to produce a law that makes it as difficult as possible for murderers of British soldiers, and those associated with such murderers, to stand for election to the House of Commons, and I hope that the amendment succeeds. Those of us who want the Bill to succeed will be here. Where are those who, earlier this week, seemed to erect a great principle? Are they willing to defend that principle a few days later?

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As everyone who has spoken, apart, of course, from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has been in favour of the amendment, I did not propose to speak on it, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has provoked me. I thought that his outburst was typically graceless, cocksure and arrogant, and I am happy that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) put his right hon. Friend in his place.
Four benefits come from the amendment. First, the country can see the degree of silliness to which the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen descends. Perhaps it will underline the fact that in matters as important as this we do not have to take his words with any great seriousness.
Secondly, the opportunity afforded by the amendment enables me to say that the country can feel confident with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in charge of affairs. The speed with which he has responded to the requests made earlier this week does him great credit. It will be a substantial cause for confidence in the country that the Home Office is in the right hands.
Thirdly, the amendment underlines the fact that both Britain and the Republic of Ireland are fighting the same battle. We are together. To some extent, I share the feeling that we should be completely in charge of our own destiny, but in this fight it may be no bad thing that there should be a legislative provision showing that Britain and Southern Ireland are together.
Fourthly, the amendment underlines the absurdity of the situation that someone who is not a British citizen can stand for election to the British Parliament. I hope that it will be realised from Second Reading and from today's debate that we reflect the view of a large proportion of the population in thinking that this situation is absurd. It is grotesque that any Tom, Dick or Harry from any country in the world can seek to be elected to this Parliament. Indeed, the situation is so absurd that one can only marvel that previous Parliaments have not put it right. I regret that the Bill does not put it right, but I understand that that is part of a wider question. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he considers the reform of the whole situation.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the situation is all part of the major mistake that the Government made in not being prepared to accept the concept of allegiance in the British Nationality Bill and in this Bill?

Mr. Lawrence: I accept that as a matter of practicality it is absurd.

Mr. McNamara: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the majority of prisoners in Port-laoise come from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their support and for their remarks about the immediate action that I took in relation to what was proposed on Second Reading. Naturally, I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), and to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who has explained that he has had to leave the Chamber for a while.
I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkdale. He was characteristically generous in his support for what I am doing. I agreed with his other points, although some of them went wide of the amendment. Nevertheless, they were of value. Obviously, I agreed with much that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford said, though I should not have said it in quite the way that he did because it would not have been like me to do so. However, he said it, and that is a matter for him.
I have been asked why the amendment had to be brought forward today and why it had not been considered before Monday. I was first charged with taking a Bill through the House in 1962. Since then I have been making changes and amendments to proposals that have been found, in some way, to be wrong. If, in 1981, I have had to make another change, hon. Members should realise that there is nothing new in that. I do not find that particularly surprising. What would be the point of Parliament if hon. Members could not sometimes prove themselves right, and Ministers wrong? Is that not satisfying? I do not know why some right hon. and hon. Members mind that they have been proved right and that I have been proved wrong. If I have given them a little satisfaction, that is splendid.
I come now to some of the important matters of detail that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—who is not in the Chamber—asked about the term "British Islands". I understand that the "British Islands" is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 as meaning the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The British Isles is not so defined, and it is not clear whether the term would include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In order to satisfy the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should add that I received such detailed advice from the Box. Naturally, the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to carry such information in my head.
I accept that the point about nominations is important. It was one such consideration that led me to a conclusion that I now accept to have been wrong. The position is that the returning officer is obliged to make the best judgment that he can on the facts available. Imprisonment is a matter of fact, not of opinion. If he is in doubt, even after he has made inquiries, he will be obliged to allow the nomination to stand. An invalid nomination can be disqualified after the election. If the returning officer makes a mistake in the other direction—which would seem unlikely—and disqualifies a valid candidate, an election petition can be presented after the election.
I deal next with the procedure by which returning officers can satisfy themselves. The Home Office will make the administrative arrangements—as regards prisons in the United Kingdom—to ensure that, as far as possible, information is available to returning officers from the United Kingdom prison authorities or through the Home Office.
I should point out to the Hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that information was properly given to the Government of the Republic, and they knew that we would introduce this amendment. In order to satisfy the hon. Gentleman still further, I should add that that information has been given since Monday. Therefore, those concerned have been properly informed. In such cases the returning officer would naturally contact the Home Office, which would contact the Republic of Ireland. Wherever it was reasonably possible, information would be readily given. That is a satisfactory administrative way of proceeding.
If some hon. Members feel that we should go further, they should bear in mind the difficulty of getting an answer, given time differences all over the world. That is a sensible reason for confining the provision to the Republic of Ireland. I realise that the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and for Walsall, North do not like the principle of the Bill. They will seek to cast doubts on the amendment. However, the debate has shown that those who believe that the Bill is right, such as the hon. Member for Kirkdale and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, and my right hon. and hon. Friends, accept that this is a sensible amendment.
I am grateful to all those who have helped me, to put right something that was initially wrong. If I bear the responsibility for being wrong initially, I can at least say that we have now improved the Bill. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 164, Noes 38.

Division No. 229]
[7.28 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lee, John


Alton, David
Le Marchant, Spencer


Ancram, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arnold, Tom
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Loveridge, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Beith, A. J.
MacGregor, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Berry, Hon Anthony
McQuarrie, Albert


Best, Keith
Major, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Marlow, Tony


Biggs-Davison, John
Mates, Michael


Blackburn, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Mayhew, Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brinton, Tim
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Moate, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Molyneaux, James


Butcher, John
Moore, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Morgan, Geraint


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Chapman, Sydney
Murphy, Christopher


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Myles, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Neale, Gerrard


Colvin, Michael
Needham, Richard


Cope, John
Newton, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Dover, Denshore
Paisley, Rev Ian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Parker, John


Dunlop, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Dunn, James A.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Pattie, Geoffrey


English, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Eyre, Reginald
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Roper, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fox, Marcus
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Rossi, Hugh


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodhew, Victor
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Goodlad, Alastair
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gow, Ian
Shepherd, Richard


Gower, Sir Raymond
Shersby, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Sims, Roger


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Speed, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A.
Speller, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hannam,John
Sproat, Iain


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Stanley, John


Hawkins, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hawksley, Warren
Steen, Anthony


Heddle, John
Stevens, Martin


Hill, James
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Tapsell, Peter


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Donald


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Kershaw, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


King, Rt Hon Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Waddington, David


Lang, Ian
Wakeham, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lawrence, Ivan
Warren, Kenneth


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Watson, John





Wells, Bowen
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wickenden, Keith



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.




NOES


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
McNally, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maxton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Newens, Stanley


Cook, Robin F.
O'Halloran, Michael


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dalyell, Tam
Richardson, Jo


Deakins, Eric
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Snape, Peter


Field, Frank
Soley, Clive


Freud, Clement
Stallard, A. W.


Graham, Ted
Stoddart, David


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howells, Geraint
Wainwright, H.(Colne V)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kerr, Russell
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


McKelvey, William
Mr. David Winnick

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
'A person shall not be disqualified under this section until after the determination by any competent court of appeal in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the British Isles or in the Republic of Ireland of any appeal made by any such person against any conviction or sentence as is mentioned above.'.
The purpose of the amendment is not to frustrate the objectives of the clause, which I strongly support, but to cure an injustice that the clause will create.
The question that the Committee should ask itself is whether it is right to impose disqualification upon a person whose conviction may subsequently be found to have been unsound. A related question is whether it is right to impose disqualification on someone whose sentence is subsequently judged to be excessive. Those are two important questions that the Committee must try to resolve.
Simply to pose the questions as I have and to apply to their resolution the ordinary principles of justice and common sense to which the Committee would like to adhere suggest the sort of answer that the Committee should give.
As a general proposition, it cannot be right, by our statute law, to disqualify persons whose convictions are subsequently found to be unfair, or persons whose sentences are subsequently judged to be excessive. Those general propositions have even greater effect in the context of Northern Ireland, where many persons are tried by the special procedure before a single judge, sitting without a jury. It is an important safeguard for the defence of such persons that they should be able to appeal. It would be monstrous if those who appealed successfully should find themselves disqualified from standing for Parliament.
I accept that one cannot judge such questions exclusively by reference to general considerations. One must always temper those considerations by considera-tions of compelling political necessity or expediency. Therefore, the question that has to be asked is whether


there are compelling reasons of political necessity that outweigh the general propositions that I have outlined. I do not believe that there are such reasons.
I accept that in a small number of cases people will appeal after conviction and, during the process of appeal, will stand for Parliament, but we have to ask whether that is such a terrible thing. If the appeal fails the disqualification will operate at the moment of failure and we shall be back to the pre-1967 situation. We shall be doing no more than reverting to the Forfeiture Act 1870 proceedings.
I am also not greatly concerned about the argument of delay that has been put forward by a number of hon. Members who are worried about the effect of the amendment. I do not believe that as a general rule courts will delay the hearing of appeals. They are aware of the importance of the issue and I am sure that either by a general direction issued under the practice directions or by application of rules to particular cases the hearing of appeals will be expedited to prevent undue delay.
The other matters that concern some hon. Members is what will happen if people appeal out of time and whether that process could be used to frustrate the clause. I do not believe that that will happen. The amendment deals only with appeals, and before an appeal can be an appeal within the meaning of the amendment it must be valid. It will not be valid unless it is brought within the relevant period, which I think is six weeks, or leave to appeal has been granted, and leave to appeal will not be granted in spurious or frivolous cases. We are dealing only with cases that can be properly construed as appeals. It will be difficult for persons who apply to appeal out of time simply to be relieved from the consequences of the clause.
7.45 pm
In any case, what I am contemplating is not so different from what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is already contemplating in the clause, which provides that disqualification does not bite until conviction, but there is nothing to prevent a man charged with an offence being nominated for election and, subsequent to the nomination, being convicted and disqualified. The disqualification will operate at the moment of conviction. All that I seek to do is to postpone that moment by a little, so that disqualification operates at the moment when the appeal is finally determined.
The general proposition in favour of the amendment is obvious. Therefore, we have to ask whether there are any good reasons of compelling political necessity that should cause us to disregard those general propositions. We must always bear in mind that our policies in Northern Ireland are judged on a wider stage, particularly in North America, and that we should not, by our statute law, impose limitations that we cannot or will not justify.
There are only two competing views on the amendment. Either we say that the situation is unjust and, because it is unjust, we shall have the amendment, or we say that the situation is unjust, but, though it is unjust, we shall not have the amendment because of compelling political necessity. We have to agree that the position is unjust, and I do not believe that there are arguments of compelling political necessity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my modest proposal.

Mr. Mayhew: I must begin my consideration of the amendment moved with such clarity by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) by looking at the

timetable provided for appeals, so that we may be clear what time scale we might be concerned with if we accepted the amendment and provided that the Bill's provisions should not bite upon those who are nominated for election having been convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment, those who have been sentenced before election, or those who, as sitting Members, are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
My hon. Friend will know, though others may not, that every convicted prisoner has a statutory right of appeal within a stated time limit. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the period is 28 clays. In Scotland the period differs according to the mode of trial.
That is only the time scale for an appeal at first instance. Rightly, in nearly every case there is the right to go higher up the appellate ladder. At any point during the time when a sentence is being served it is open to a sentenced prisoner to apply for leave to appeal out of time. Although we have this structure of time within which one must lodge an appeal, followed by the processes of appeal, which are not always quick and which cannot always be expedited—I agree that in proper cases courts try their best to expedite an appeal—there arises the question whether one is to pay attention to someone who has applied for leave to appeal even though the time in which he should do so has long expired.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) dealt with that point.

Mr. Mayhew: What my hon. Friend said was that within the meaning of his amendment, by which think he probably means within his meaning or intent, an appeal would be a relevant appeal only if it were a valid appeal. Where is the principle that lies behind that? We allow people to apply for leave to appeal out of time because we recognise that circumstances my arise in which new evidence has come to light or a new factor has arisen that warrants an appeal and gives a reasonable prospect, of an appeal being allowed. One can at any rate get an appeal on its feet.
If it is thought right that in this context, we should make the exemption, within time, why should we deny it to someone who claims that he has found grounds for appeal, albeit out of time? One has to recognise the extent of the time scale with which we are dealing.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to go on about this matter. We are dealing with a situation in which the ordinary appeal time has expired. Until leave to appeal has been given there is not an appeal before the court, and the relief afforded by my amendment does not operate.

Mr. Mayhew: If someone has applied for leave to appeal, I do not read my hon. Friend's amendment as exempting from its ambit the relief that he seeks. I do not believe that if this were incorporated into the Bill, it would be clear that there would be excluded from the relief that this amendment would confer a prisoner who has applied in proper form for leave to appeal out of time.
One can take the case of someone who has not necessarily applied for leave but has lodged an appeal. I take the case of someone who is then nominated. That person will say that he agrees that he is serving a sentence of more than 12 months but that he must be allowed, no matter what the nature of the offence for which he has been


convicted, to be nominated, because in a few weeks' or months' time, or perhaps more than a year's time, the processes of justice will work and he may be acquitted. That imports into our electoral procedures a harmful and incongruous degree of uncertainty, to put it no higher.
If we are talking about disqualification for election to the House and membership of the House, the same point applies. If we think it right—hon. Members have to accept the principle that was accepted on Second Reading—to exclude someone who has been convicted and given a sentence of the type with which we are concerned and on which the Bill bites, it cannot be right to import this degree of uncertainty simply because there may be an acquittal. The assumption has changed. Until we are convicted, the assumption is that we are innocent. Once we are convicted, the assumption is that we are guilty.
I turn to the high water mark of the case so attractively made by my hon. Friend. In the case of someone who is sitting as a Member of the House, the penalty is more dire. He is tipped out of his seat. He is tipped out of his job. It can be said that the consequences affect more people than are affected by the application of the Bill to somebody who is seeking to be nominated or elected. That has to be faced. It is not, however, all one way. The Forfeiture Act 1870 presented exactly that pattern. Disqualification under the 1870 Act, to the extent that it disqualified from sitting and voting in this House and being elected to the House, operated straight away upon conviction.
We must test these provisions, as we must test an amendment, against a hypothetical case. There might be someone who is now a sitting Member. At the time he was elected he was somebody who was not convicted. He was somebody charged with an offence of terrorism. He was somebody who had not yet been convicted. There was no bar either to his nomination or to his election. Shortly after his arrival in the House, he is convicted and sentenced, say, to a term of imprisonment of five years. Is it really what we desire, having regard to the principle accepted on Second Reading, that such a person should remain as a Member of the House until such time as the ultimate of the processes of appeal has been reached and determined? That is one view. For that period, which may extend to more than a year, that—

Mr. Cunningham: Innocent man.

Mr. Mayhew: No. Not that innocent man. In law, the assumption is that he is a guilty man because he has been convicted. The constituency for that period will be disfranchised. That is the practicality. That type of case can arise.
One has to acknowledge, facing the situation in Northern Ireland, that it is not possible, while seeking to remedy an abuse of the nature of that with which we are dealing, to serve completely the interests of justice and, at the same time, to serve completely the interests of practicality and the interests of speed. I acknowledge that there can arise from the Bill, as constructed, a hard case. I invite my hon. Friend to consider, however, the fact that there cannot arise a very hard case for a whole constituency that would be disfranchised for a period of many months and, perhaps, a year, in the circumstances that I have suggested. Twelve months is too long to disfranchise a constituency.
My hon. Friend has been fair in arguing his case. I concede that the last point that I have made does not apply to an appeal against sentence. I fall back upon the first two points that I made. In the House we always look to see whether what we are doing is justifiable on its merits and to see whether we can be reassured by the knowledge that the principle has been applied before. The principle was applied for 97 years in the case of felonies in the House, for sentences of more than 12 months. In the case of felonies, where there was a sentence of hard labour, it did not have to be 12 months. Any sentence of hard labour attracted the disqualification of the Act.
I recognise that a case exists and that it has been expounded as eloquently and as fairly as possible for the amendment. However, the practical consequences of it, when applied at the point of nomination, when applied at the point of election, and when applied at the point of conviction of a sitting Member of the House, are such as to represent far too damaging a weakening of the provisions of the Bill. On balance, and without pleasure, I suggest that the amendment should be rejected.

8 pm

Mr. Hattersley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) not only tabling the amendment, but on the way in which he moved it. It seemed that, apart from one part of his argument, he made an incontrovertible case. The one part to which I have referred seemed probably right, while the rest of his speech was certainly right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will press the amendment to a Division. If the hon. Gentleman does so, I shall be in the Lobby alongside those who think that this improvement to the Bill should be made.
The Minister of State summarised his argument against the amendment rather paradoxically when he replied to the debate on Second Reading three days ago. In answering a question that I put to him, he explained in encapsulated form the case that he has argued this evening. He said:
I acknowledge that someone who has entered an appeal against sentence or conviction will, nevertheless, be caught. This is where the interest of speed arises, because in many cases we cannot await the long processes of an appeal in order to determine such matters. An election cannot be spun out in that way." —[Official Report, 22 June 1981; Vol 7, c. 106.]
By any standards, that is a description of rough justice. The Minister was saying that he regarded the practice of excluding men and women whose case may still be subject to appeal as undesirable. He was arguing that it was unavoidably undesirable.
As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Grantham—I trespass with some trepidation and reluctance into some of the legal technicalities that he exchanged with his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State—he has done his best to limit the delay and the possible categories in which delay is possible. Certainly the amendment refers to when the appeal is made. As I understand it, that will produce two results. The first result is that there may be an appeal in time, which will not cause the unconscionable delay of which the Minister speaks. The second result is that until leave to appeal is granted the disqualification will not apply.
I assume that in cases where there is an obviously contentious, fractious or bogus appeal, made for the purpose of delaying the disqualification, the courts will look upon that in a practical and sensible way and will


avoid the situation that the Minister has described of a long delay in a protracted case: that is, the intention to make nonsense of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Grantham is concerned with a hypothetical case, apart from the one that the Minister of State described, which was the best that he could possibly make. That case involved, not a convicted man who was not serving a 12-month sentence for any of the offences that might regarded as being on the margin of culpability, but a terrorist. Let us take a different hypothetical case in which a man is convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, or a little more, and, after an appeal in time, is discovered to be innocent.
I am sure that the Minister and the hon. Member for Grantham are right to say that after initial conviction the assumption is no longer of innocence, but of guilt. However, we should be discussing not the assumption of innocence or guilt, but the possibility of the reality of innocence or guilt. As the Bill stands, it is possible for a man or woman to be convicted and, in the end, having been excluded from this place, to be adjudged not to have committed the offence that caused the exclusion. It is possible for a man or woman to be convicted, to be sentenced for a period that results in exclusion from this place, and to have the sentence reduced on appeal to a period that does not make exclusion inevitable. That cannot in principle be right. Can it in practice be justified?
The Minister will understand that it is difficult for those of us who object to the Bill in principle to climb inside his logic to try to examine the practicalities of applying the Bill. That is a difficult task that I know I shall perform inadequately. It seems that within the limits carefully described by the hon. Member for Grantham the practicalities are observed that are necessary to the Minister's case. The Minister argued in part with the hon. Gentleman's drafting. He said that if he were asking for the avoidance of exclusion in the categories that he described, his amendment embraced that proposal imperfectly.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying that I always find that a deeply unattractive way of resisting a Back Bencher's amendment. The argument that the Minister must advance is that the hon. Gentleman's intention is faulty. If the hon. Gentleman's argument and intention are right, and if a couple of prepositions or three badly placed words make the intention unworkable, it is the Minister's duty—he certainly possesses the opportunity in another place—to tidy up what the hon. Gentleman originally intended.
The original intention was that there should be strict limits around a provision that states that lest a man be innocent he should not be excluded before his appeal is exhausted. Some of the arguments that the Minister advanced against his hon. Friend's case seemed to be stretching the bounds of credibility. He talked about the disfranchisement of a constituency while an appeal is being heard. I know that for the purpose of the amendment I must accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion and ignore my own argument, but a constituency is not necessarily disfranchised because its Member is serving a prison sentence.
The Minister is prepared to see a constituency disfranchised for 11 months and three weeks under the Bill. The fact that a Member of Parliament is in prison and not able to carry out his duties is not an automatic barrier or bar to his membership. Why should the Minister's

argument be wheeled out when the Member is in prison in these altogether special circumstances? I refer to the circumstances of mounting an appeal which may in the end prove his innocence and may result in a sentence being imposed upon him which would result in disqualification.
I ask the Minister to think again. The hon. Member for Grantham has made the strongest possible case for what he is arguing. Some of my hon. Friends support the Bill in principle in a way that I could not, and do not, but I think that they will regard it as right to provide this element of protection. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it in his heart and mind to change his attitude and to accept the amendment, which is workable and proper. If he is not prepared to do so, I am sure that the Committee will want to take the matter to a Division. There are many of us who think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Grantham is admirable in every way and that it deserves the approval of the Committee.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In relation to nomination and election, which is clause 2(1), the Minister of State made out against the amendment an argument of practicality which it was difficult to resist. However, when we test the amendment against clause 2(2), which is the case of a Member who becomes disqualified under this measure when he is already a Member of this place, we are forced to recognise that by this Bill we are depriving ourselves of a useful discretion, and a descretion which we have hitherto possessed. That is a result which is not in any way necessary to the general purpose of the Bill.
The difficulty that the amendment highlights of the certainty of guilt not being clear at the time of election can be dealt with and has been dealt with, under our existing procedure whereby the expulsion and the voiding of a seat take place by the decision of the House. The House is therefore able to take into account in coming to its decision circumstances such as whether there is an appeal pending and all the attendant particulars of the individual case. The Bill, by clause 2(2), is substituting statute for the decision of the House. It is a measurable and perceptible diminution of the sovereign self-government of this House that a seat in the House is now to be voided by statute automatically by reason of the provisions of the Bill.
That effect is not necessary to the purpose of the Bill. Moreover, the inconvenience which the amendment has highlighted and the injustice are at their height when someone is already a Member of the House. After all, what that person is being denied under the Bill, if it is a matter of election and nomination, is the opportunity to be elected. None of us knows whether he will be elected. He may not have the remotest chance of being elected. It is perhaps a tolerable hardship—though perhaps not one of strict justice—to have to defer one's attempt to become a Member of this honourable House until one's innocence has been established by a successful appeal.
It is a different matter when a person has, by a majority of the electorate, been made a Member of this House, and has perhaps been a Member for a substantial time, conceivably through a series of Parliaments, for that seat to be voided when, retrospectively, we may know that it was not necessary that it should have been voided, and for a by-election to take place and that place to be filled over the head of a person who is subsequently on appeal found to be innocent.
Therefore, because of the practicalities concerning the main purpose of the Bill in clause 2(1), I would not go so


far as to support the amendment as it stands. However, the House should be very tender of surrendering to statute that which it possesses of its inherent right. This is something that the Government should consider, as they have the opportunity to consider it, in the subsequent stages of the Bill.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I add my voice to the request that this matter be reconsidered. In my opinion, it would be unacceptable to the House in forms of evaluating justice if any person were denied an opportunity to be a candidate in an election and offer himself in the ways that we all have done, if any appeal has been made on his behalf, taking into account the out-of-time situations which were drawn to our attention when the amendment was moved, and bearing in mind that any appeal that is made out of time has to have the agreement of the court that it should be allowed.
I note what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, but we are discussing two situations. We are discussing circumstances which could easily arise from amendment No. 16, where the House is seeking to regain the powers which, if the Bill were passed in its present form, it would surrender. These are two different points.
8.15 pm
One of my principal objections to what happened before the Bill was the question of offence. It was against natural justice that people who are guilty of such criminal offences could stand as candidates in United Kingdom elections. It was for that reason that I gave the proposal my absolute and wholehearted support. But I believe that it is just as much an offence to deny people the right to use existing legislation to claim what they consider to be natural justice, too.
Until all the possibilities have been explored and a final decision is made, I do not go along with the way that the Minister has explained that a person is guilty. If after rough justice a person is found innocent, after all the appeal procedures have been invoked—such as happened recently—and a disqualification is added to the burden of an offence against natural justice, that will be totally unacceptable to me.
Although the wording of the amendment may not necessarily be entirely acceptable, I hope that the Home Office will accept its intention and come back with a new wording that will be acceptable to all those who have spoken. That would probably satisfy the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who moved the amendment, and it would certainly be acceptable to me. Those who advise from another place that the amendment should be rejected should think with care, because I shall support the amendment if it is taken to a Division.

Mr. Mayhew: We are debating a matter of great importance. I have listened with care to the three speeches that followed that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who moved the amendment.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is right when he says that the House of Commons itself has the jurisdiction to expel any of its Members, and an inherent jurisdiction to determine who shall and who shall not sit here. However, I think that he will agree that the trend over the past century or more has been to regulate

matters of disqualification of Members of the House by statute rather than by leaving them to the resolution of the House, which certainly in days gone by tended to be influenced by party considerations.
That has been a general trend. Of course, it does not exclude the possibility of regulating this matter, whether a sitting Member should lose his seat by virtue of this Bill—or statute, as we hope it will become—or whether it shall depend upon the exercise or non-exercise by the House of that jurisdiction. We can leave it to the power of the House to expel.
However, it would not be right to do so in this case, and it would be difficult to justify outside the House the fact that we were prepared to accept a period of what I have called disfranchisement for a constituency when its cause and origin was the conviction of one of our own Members, when we were not prepared to accept that when its cause and origin was the conviction of someone who had yet to become a Member and who sought to be nominated or to be elected. It would be difficult to avoid the charge that we were again seeking to confer special privileges upon ourselves which we were were not prepared to confer on other people.
I have acknowledged that it is at the highest point of my hon. Friend's case that he can say, as the right hon. Gentleman and others said, that here we are dealing with someone who is a Member of the House of Commons, whose expulsion will have much more serious consequences on other people than those that will be visited upon other people if he is simply prevented from standing.
For the reasons that I have sought to advance, it would not be right to make an exception in favour of one of our Members. Because these matters are of profound importance, and it is not right at the conclusion of a short debate to say that the mind can be made up on the basis of arguments so recently advanced, we shall consider whether—contrary to my present opinion—it is right to heed what has been said and act upon it. At the moment I cannot hold out any hope.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Should it not be borne in mind that for 97 years there has been a statutory disqualification but that, nevertheless, the voiding of the seat has taken place by decision of the House? It would be hard to say that we were discriminating in the matter of disqualification between our Members and those who were not our Members.

Mr. Mayhew: That intervention gives rise to an interesting glimpse of history. To my knowledge, only two cases have arisen since the 1870 Act took effect. One was the case of Mr. Lynch, who, while a sitting Member, was convicted of treason. The Attorney-General of the day gave it as his opinion that there was no need to pass a resolution, or even to consider whether he should be expelled, because the Act made it clear that that was the only course, there and then. That advice was accepted, the writ moved immediately, and the seat vacated. That was a treason case in 1904.
In 1956, in the case of a Mr. Baker, the House did expel. It was a felony conviction, and the House resolved to expel Mr. Baker. I expect that the right hon. Member for Down, South remembers that. I suspect that there was an element of belt and braces in that. The advice given to the Government was that under the Forfeiture Act 1870,


the disqualification that was imposed by the Act took effect there and then. In the case of Mr. Baker there was no need for the resolution that was passed. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's point is established—certainly not beyond controversy. It is noteworthy that there have been only two cases. We are talking of a rare occurrence.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I recall a case that involved a Labour colleague—I cannot remember his name, although is is on the tip of my tongue—who was found guilty of an offence but later, on appeal, was cleared. What would the Minister say under those circumstances if there was an automatic disqualification and a vacating of the seat, in which the House would not have a voice because it would have been done by statute? Upon reflection, and with the knowledge of a successful appeal, what would he advise us to do then? What would be the consequences if the Bill became law overnight?

Mr. Mayhew: The consequences are clear. The seat would be vacated. No doubt a writ would be moved. It all depends on the time scale. I concede that the consequence is that the seat would be vacated. It would be a hard case. I have not sought to conceal that.

Mr. George Cunningham: The case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) referred is well known. The Member in question was, on appeal, called into the well of the court and addressed by the judge in firm terms. He said that he should never have been convicted and that there was no stain upon his character. Could the Minister imagine the position if a person had been wrongly convicted, was told something like that in court, but meanwhile, by the automatic functioning of such a Bill, had been expelled by the House? Whatever is said tonight, it would then be said that that was a massive injustice.

Mr. Mayhew: So it would. We have to weigh that possibility against the evil that we are seeking to combat. Surely that was the case in 1870. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham acknowledged, these matters fall to be weighed against the existence of political necessity, and the weight that it is thought proper to give to political necessity.
I do not think that I can do fairer than to say what I have said, that we shall consider what has been said tonight. I hope that it is plain that I have never acknowledged that this would be other than rough justice. It is inherent in any instance of rough justice that there are hard cases as well as cases that are not hard. It is rough justice in the case of someone who is prevented from being elected. However, I believe that we are inclined slightly to get away from the realities as we rightly test out those proposals against the cases which can arise. In the case of nomination and of election, we are concerned with people who are being manipulated.
I gave the circumstances of a hypothetical case which came to my mind. It is possible to conceive of someone who is being used in the same way, but in that case is lending himself to a more active role in the scheme, whereby someone who has been charged, for example, with terrorist offences, comes here but has not been convicted and is then almost immediately convicted. I suggest that it is against that background that we need to examine whether it is essential, in the interests of justice,

that he should be permitted to retain that seat while in prison and while the processes of appeal are pursued to an ultimate conclusion.
I do not believe that I can make the Government's position clearer. Others might be able to do so. We shall listen, but it would be wrong for me to say now that I believe that there is a likelihood that we shall feel it right to change to the extent which the right hon. Member for Down, South suggests. I am grateful for what he said about the first part of the proposition.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I cannot pretend that I am entirely satisfied with the answers of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. I am grateful to Opposition Members. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 53, Noes 137.

Division No. 230]
[8.27 pm


AYES


Alton, David
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Atkinson,N.(H'gey,)
McNally, Thomas


Beith, A. J.
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Morton, George


Canavan, Dennis
O'Halloran, Michael


Cook, Robin F.
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Penhaligon, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Richardson, Jo


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tam
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Davidson, Arthur
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Sheerman, Barry


Deakins, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Shepherd, Richard


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Stoddart, David


Field, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Freud, Clement
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Graham, Ted
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Woolmer, Kenneth


Haynes, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Heffer, Eric S.



Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hooley, Frank
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Howells, Geraint
Mr. David Winnick.


Kerr, Russell





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Ancram, Michael
Butcher, John


Arnold, Tom
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'boone)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Costain, Sir Albert


Biggs-Davison, John
Critchley, Julian


Blackburn, John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bright, Graham
Dover, Denshore


Brinton, Tim
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dunlop, John


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Buck, Antony
Faith, Mrs Sheila






Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Murphy, Christopher


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Myles, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Neale, Gerrard


Fox, Marcus
Needham, Richard


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Newton, Tony


Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Greenway, Harry
Paisley, Rev Ian


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon A.
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hannam,John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Renton, Tim


Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hawksley, Warren
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Heddle, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shersby, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Speed, Keith


Knight, Mrs Jill
Speller, Tony


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stanley, John


Lee, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lyell, Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Thompson, Donald


MacGregor, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


McQuarrie, Albert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Major, John
Viggers, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Waddington, David


Mates, Michael
Wakeham, John


Mather, Carol
Watson, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Mayhew, Patrick
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wickenden, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wilkinson, John


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wolfson, Mark


Moate, Roger
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Molyneaux, James



Moore, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Morgan, Geraint
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 45.

Division No. 231]
[8.38 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Antony


Arnold, Tom
Budgen, Nick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Butcher, John


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Best, Keith
Colvin, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Costain, Sir Albert


Biggs-Davison, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Blackburn, John
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bright, Graham
Dover, Denshore


Brinton, Tim
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dunlop, John


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Dunn, James A.





Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Myles, David


Eyre, Reginald
Neale, Gerrard


Fairgrieve, Russell
Needham, Richard


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Newton, Tony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Onslow, Cranley


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fox, Marcus
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pattie, Geoffrey


Goodhew, Victor
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Goodlad, Alastair
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gower, Sir Raymond
Proctor, K. Harvey


Greenway, Harry
Renton, Tim


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Roper, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hannam, John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hawkins, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawksley, Warren
Shepherd, Richard


Heddle, John
Shersby, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sims, Roger


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Speed, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Speller, Tony


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sproat, Iain


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Mrs Jill
Stanley, John


Lang, Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Donald


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lyell, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


McCrindle, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacGregor, John
Viggers, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Waddington, David


McQuarrie, Albert
Wakeham, John


Major, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marlow, Tony
Watson, John


Mates, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Mather, Carol
Wells, Bowen


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mayhew, Patrick
Wickenden, Keith


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wolfson, Mark


Moate, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Molyneaux, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moore, John



Morgan, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Mr. John Cope and


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Murphy, Christopher





NOES


Alton, David
Haynes, Frank


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Kerr, Russell


Cook, Robin F.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
McNally, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maxton, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Morton, George


Davidson, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Penhaligon, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Richardson, Jo


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


English, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Field, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Stallard, A. W.


Graham, Ted
Stoddart, David


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)






Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mr. David Winnick.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

EFFECTS OF DISQUALIFICATION

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'void' to end of line 16.
I do not intend to delay the Committee for too long. Those hon. Members who have read the amendment will see that I merely seek to put the position back to what it was before the House, in its error, did away with the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours.
I am endeavouring to put the clock back. A constituency would be able to nominate whom it wished and elect whom it wishes. That person may eventually be disenfranchised, but it is the right of a constituency to decide who it wants as its representative in the House of Commons. That is all that the amendment does, and I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the Committee.

Mr. George Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) explained his purpose in moving the amendment, and I have one or two things to say about that purpose. Before coming to that, however, perhaps I can ask the Minister to explain just what the effect would be of deleting the words as proposed by the amendment.
Earlier this evening the Minister referred to "belt and braces". It seems to me that we have got belt, braces and something else in the Bill, and that the words that are proposed to be deleted are the "something else". First, we say that the returning officer can reject the purported nomination. Then we seem to say that if he does not, it is void anyway. That is the job that is done by the words at the bottom of the page. Then we say that if, somehow or other, nevertheless, the election takes place and the person gets into the House, he is disqualified from sitting there.
I am not sure why we need those three ways of catching the persons defined in the Act. Perhaps the Minister would explain exactly what would be the effect of deleting these words. I do not think that the effect would be to change the situation to that covered by the 1870 provisions. But if the amendment does have the effect described by my hon. Friend, it is the very heart of the Bill. If we were returning to the situation of 1870 we would be saying that a person as described in the Bill cannot sit and vote in the House. He could be nominated, and an election could take place but then the process would stop.
During our discussions on Monday there were some remarks about the position on local government elections, and the implication of some of those remarks was that in such elections we did disqualify from election—not just from sitting but from election. The implication was that we already did with regard to local elections more or less what is being proposed here with regard to parliamentary elections, and I put it to the Minister—who invoked on Monday the comparison with local government elections—that that is not correct, because the rules relating to local government elections state that

The returning officer shall be entitled to hold a nomination paper invalid only on one of the following grounds".
Then there are two grounds, both of which relate 1:0 the form of the nomination paper—that it is not subscribed as required, or that the particulars of the candidate or the person subscribing the paper are not as required by law.
In local government elections, the returning officer, as I see it, does not have the right to rule that a person's nomination is an invalid one. It is true that in his consent to nomination the nominee has to certify that to the best of his knowledge he is qualified to sit, and he would presumably be committing perjury of some kind if he were to certify that contrary to his true knowledge. But the returning officer, even if he knows absolutely that the person is not qualified to sit in a local authority, does not appear to have any power to reject the nomination upon that ground.
So it is not only that until now in parliamentary elections we have not given to the returning officer the power to invalidate a nomination; in local elections., too, we have not given that power to the returning officer, which only stresses the fact that we are breaking new ground just as much as we said we were on Monday. We are breaking ground that has not previously been broken, either with regard to parliamentary elections or with regard to local elections.

Mr. Mayhew: To deal with the textual point first, the effect of the amendment and—I understand from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)—its purpose is to remove the provision whereby persons disqualified for election under the Bill are also to be disqualified from being nominated. The amendment seeks to do that by taking out the words after the semicolon in line 15:
and if such a person is nominated for election as a member of that House his nomination shall be void".
It is my fault if I have misunderstood the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), but I did not altogether follow his remarks about the use of the word "void".
Under the procedure there are two stages. First, at nomination, the returning officer has to inquire whether the proposed candidate falls within the class excluded by the Bill. If the returning officer is satisfied that he does, he may not include the candidate's name in the list of those who are validly nominated.
That is what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central seeks to remove from the Bill, for reasons that understand. The amendment would have that effect, save that it should have gone on to strike out the provision in the schedule giving effect in the parliamentary elections rules to the changes in the nomination procedure. It is a perfectly proper point, and the amendment would achieve it.
I can answer the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central as shortly as he put it. We: intend to deal not with those who are standing bona fide: with any intention of taking part in parliamentary affairs or with any intention or capability of getting elected. We have to deal with cases in which a candidate is put up who is unable to take any part in parliamentary affairs but who serves a political purpose by being used in that way.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) accurately described the motives behind those who use prisoners for this purpose. That is why we


do not believe that we would be getting more than a small fraction of the loaf if we were simply to disqualify for membership of the House.
That would leave to these people the great prizes of an election campaign with free postage, free television appearance, free coverage in the media generally and, at the end, depending upon the degree of success that the various methods, lawful and unlawful, would have had, the possibility of being able to say "See, the majority have voted for our candidate". To go through these hoops and to end without having shut the door on that part of the abuse which is almost the most damaging part would be silly. That is why I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury drew attention to the local government election rules. On Second Reading I did not seek to rely upon the Local Government Act as a precedent for refusing nomination, or for conferring upon the returning officer the power to determine whether a nomination was valid, save in respect of the technical rules about subscription. I was relying on the Local Government Act in another context. I was seeking to show that the Local Government Act provided that a person who had been convicted of an offence and sentenced to prison for more than three months—even as long ago as five years—cannot be qualified to be elected to a council. That was the context in which I drew attention to it. I have not looked at the local government election rules. However, I am content to accept what the hon. Gentleman says about their contents.
9 pm
Our provisions are not without a precedent, although I do not rely strongly on it. In the previous Scottish local election rules a returning officer could reject a nomination if he was not satisfied with a potential candidate's eligibility to stand. For example, he might hold a disqualifying office or he might be under the qualifying age. The returning officer is no longer required to consider any such provisions, but there was a time when he was. I am not sure whether that confers greater respectability on these provisions. However, I do not mind, because as they stand the provisions are respectable. They meet a proven need to remedy an abuse and are of great value.
I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. McNamara: I greatly regret what the Minister said. I had hoped that he would accept the amendment. Indeed, if the House accepts the amendment I am sure that you, Mr. Godman Irvine, will accept the necessary manuscript amendments.
The amendment goes to the root of the Bill. It touches on the central point of the argument, namely, whether people should be allowed to stand, and whether a constituency should be allowed to choose whoever it wishes to be a candidate, without let or hindrance from others. The constituency must then take the consequences of having elected a person under such circumstances. It will continue to be a matter of argument in the House, if, by closing the loophole—if there is one—we have again told the IRA on the one hand that there are democratic methods and, on the other, that if they use them we shall alter them if we do not like the result. That has been the

argument. If we change the rules in this way, at this stage, we shall be making a grave error. Therefore, I shall press my amendment to a Division.

Mr. Winnick: I shall keep my remarks brief. Some hon. Members, deliberately or otherwise, seemed to misunderstand our position. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke about the victims of terrorism. He has no monopoly of concern for the victims of terrorism. I include among those victims those soldiers who have been killed during the past 12 years. The last thing that we wish to do is to condone terrorism. I am opposed to terrorism in any shape or form. There is no excuse for it in the conditions of Northern Ireland.
It is a question of finding the most effective way of fighting terrorism while at the same time finding a solution that will bring peace to the Six Counties. Unsuccessfully, we have tried to stress to the Government that the rights of the electorate should be our first consideration. If the electorate wish to vote for someone who is disqualified from sitting in the House, that is a matter for them. I do not suggest for a minute that if a detained or imprisoned person is elected he should be released from prison. That is not my argument. I did not suggest that the late Mr. Sands should be released. However, I did not agree that he should be expelled from the House. I saw no reason why the House should seek to do that.
In the coming by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone the IRA will find other ways of causing the Government the maximum amount of political embarrassment. The Bill will be proved to be an irrelevance. Ultimately, the House must decide. Unfortunately, it seems that it will make the wrong decision. The person for whom the electorate wishes to vote should have the right to stand for election, even if he is in prison and has no right to sit in the House. The electorate know the circumstances and it is up to them to make up their minds.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 41, Noes 150.

Division No. 232]
[9.5 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kerr, Russell


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bidwell, Sydney
McNally, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maxton, John


Canavan, Dennis
O'Halloran, Michael


Cook, Robin F.
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Penhaligon, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Richardson, Jo


Davidson, Arthur
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Sheerman, Barry


Deakins, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Donald
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Stoddart, David


Field, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Foster, Derek
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freud, Clement
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Graham, Ted
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heffer, Eric S.
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Hooley, Frank
Mr. David Winnick.


Howells, Geraint





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)


Ancram, Michael
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Beith, A. J.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Bendall, Vivian






Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Major, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Marlow, Tony


Best, Keith
Mates, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mather, Carol


Biggs-Davison, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Blackburn, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Bright, Graham
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brinton, Tim
Moate, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Moore, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Morgan, Geraint


Buck, Antony
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Budgen, Nick
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Butcher, John
Murphy, Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Myles, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Neale, Gerrard


Chapman, Sydney
Needham, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Newton, Tony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Onslow, Cranley


Colvin, Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Cope, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Costain, Sir Albert
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Critchley, Julian
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Percival, Sir Ian


Dover, Denshore
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dunlop, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dunn, James A.
Renton, Tim


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Roper, John


Eyre, Reginald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Shersby, Michael


Fox, Marcus
Sims, Roger


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Speed, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Speller, Tony


Goodhew, Victor
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Goodlad, Alastair
Sproat, Iain


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stanbrook, Ivor


Greenway, Harry
Stanley, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Tapsell, Peter


Hannam, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Thompson, Donald


Hawksley, Warren
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Heddle, John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Viggers, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Waddington, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wakeham, John


Kilfedder, James A.
Waldegrave, Hon William


King, Rt Hon Tom
Watson, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Wellbeloved, James


Lang, Ian
Wells, Bowen


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lawrence, Ivan
Wickenden, Keith


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Wilkinson, John


Lee, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
WoIfson, Mark


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lyell, Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


McCrindle, Robert



MacGregor, John
Tellers for the Noes:


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


McQuarrie, Albert
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 16 in page 2, line 2, at end add—

`(3) If in a case covered by subsection 2 of this section it appears to the House of Commons that the circumstances are such that it is not proper for the Member to be disqualified and his seat to be voided the House may by order direct that any such disqualification shall be disregarded for such period as the order may provide; and any such order shall be subject to cancellation or amendment by subsequent order of the House.'.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 2, at end insert
'providing any such disqualification has been confirmed by the House of Commons'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 2, at end add—
`(3) No person shall be disqualified under subsection (1) of this section until an order relating to his particular nomination or election has been laid before the House of Commons, and such disqualification shall become void if the order is not approved by affirmative resolution within fourteen sitting days.',
New clause 2—Secretary of State's discretion.

Mr. McNamara: The purpose of the amendment is to take the Bill beyond its relevance to the situation in Northern Ireland and to examine the rights of hon. Members to determine our own membership in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has asked me to say that he apologises for the fact that he cannot be present to move his amendment and asks to be associated with what I say. Whether he will still say so after reading my speech is another matter.
I seek to give back to the House the ultimate right to determine its own membership. Clause 2(2) states:
If a member of the House of Commons becomes disqualified by this Act for membership of that House his seat shall be vacated.
Hon. Members have always been extremely jealous of our rights to determine our own membership once people become Members of the House. Whatever is decided in relation to whether a person is entitled to stand and whether there is a list of disqualifications to prevent him from being nominated or to prevent him from taking his seat, we have generally determined, as a House, that once he has been elected, we shall decide who shall or shall not be present. It is grievous despite what the Minister of State said earlier about the general codification of these matters, that the House itself should still not have the ultimate right to decide on its own composition and the right of any person, properly elected and having taken his seat, to remain.
The proposed "over-ride" subsection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) describes it, seeks to ensure that ultimately the House itself shall decide whether or not the seat shall be vacated. This means that if, in any case covered by subsection (2), we as a House, believe that it is not proper for a Member to be disqualified, we can take a vote and decide the matter. That seems a fundamental right of the House.
Although the Bill is brought before the House specifically to deal with a matter that arose in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, it goes further than that by-election and the six counties. It affects the whole of the United Kingdom. It affects any seat of any Member in any circumstances. Once a Member is elected to the House, he is expected to abide by the rules and regulations that we, normally, as a self—disciplining body, make.
That has always been a matter of selfishness for the House of Commons. It is something that it has kept to itself, and in the past it has brought it into conflict even


with the electorate when the House of Commons has sought to expel and the electorate has sought to return. However, in the long run the House of Commons has bowed to the wishes of the electorate. Equally, it has retained the power to regulate who shall or shall not sit in this place.
That right has been preserved and it rests with the membership of the House of Commons. It is an overriding right. It does not necessarily undo the principle that the Government are seeking to introduce by means of the Bill. It does not affect a person standing for election. It does not affect a person being elected. However, it deals with the person who is a Member of this place at the time he is convicted. I am saying that if he is sentenced and convicted, the power to override should rest with the House of Commons and it should be able to decide whether that person should properly be expelled.
I am certain that in the majority of cases the House of Commons would not seek to interfere with judicial decisions. However, if a maverick judge sentenced someone to a term of imprisonment of a year and a day—equally, a maverick judge could sentence someone to 11 months and 28 days—we could feel as a House of Commons that that person had been improperly treated.
It is not beyond the bounds of reason to say that there are occasions when a person may be picked up under the criminal law on something that is generally accepted as being not necesarily a crime in the sense that it would have been so regarded 20, 30 or 50 years ago. The person concerned might be sentenced to a term of imprisonment longer than a year. We as the House of Commons might say, "That is not right. That is not proper in our times and in our day." The amendment seeks merely to overcome that problem and to retain something that it has jealously guarded. That is the right of the House to decide its composition.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) will not be too embarrassed when he learns that I support the amendment. I like to be even-handed in my support. Having supported the Home Secretary, I think that I should support my hon. Friend and explain why I do so.
There are two categories of persons who can develop a disability while they are Members of the House of Commons. I refer to lunatics and criminals. It is right that neither certified lunatics nor convicted criminals should have the right of nomination or election to this place. It follows that those without those disadvantages who become Members should not be treated separately.
Our mental health legislation deals effectively with a Member of Parliament who becomes a little loony. I understand that Mr. Speaker has to call upon the presidents of the two Royal Colleges to examine and report independently of each other their opinion of the hon. Member's mental state. On receipt of the reports, Mr. Speaker may put it to the House of Commons that the Member should be removed and confined in an asylum.
If we do that for lunatics, the same should apply to convicted criminals. If a person is elected to the House and subsequently is convicted and falls within the purview of the Bill, it should remain the right of this place to exercise a judgment. Parliament is the supreme court, and it would

be right for it to judge. I hope that it would become custom and practice, unless there were sound reasons that satisfied the House to the contrary for criminals to be expelled. I am sure that my hon. friend would not necesarily dissent from that.
I hope that the Government will think carefully about this proposal. If they cannot give an undertaking tonight to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, I hope that they will at least say that they will give the matter further consideration with a view to the possible introduction of such an amendment in the other place.

Mr. Winnick: My amendment No. 17, which is being taken with amendment No. 16, is somewhat different. It deals with subsection (1) of clause 2. It proposes that an affirmative resolution should be approved by the House of Commons before a person is disqualified under the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), speaking on Second Reading on Monday, came to the conclusion that it was impossible to improve the Bill. Perhaps that explains his absence tonight. Speaking with all the authority of a former Attorney-General, he said that the Bill was inadequate, as many of us have said all along.
However, if the Bill is to be passed, as clearly will happen, it could be improved in this way, so that no one could be disqualified automatically. An order would be placed before the House, and it would have to be approved by affirmative resolution. That would be one way to overcome the view held by many Labour Members that it is quite wrong to deprive a person of the possibility of standing in an election, even though that person would not be able to take his seat in the House of Commons. Hence the reason for my amendment.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I have tabled an amendment, but it is starred, so it could not be called. It relates to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I have sought leave to bring it back as a manuscript amendment on Report. My starred amendment is probably more acceptable, in that it deals with all the situations without qualification and returns in full that which the House is now being asked to surrender.
The House would be unwise to surrender what it now possesses. We as a body have always been able to deal with affairs in a manner which has been just and has taken into account all the circumstances. The procedures that we have adopted permit full consideration of such affairs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said, at the end of the day the House is supreme, and that should not be diminished in any way by this Bill.
I have brought to the House's attention hypothetical cases and factual cases in which, if the powers had not existed, there would have been major problems, and certainly injustice. If we surrender the powers now, that which could have happened before will certainly happen at some time in the consideration that might be attached to the authenticity of a person sitting in this Chamber.
If I am a little unfair, I know that the Minister will not take offence. His own profession—probably wisely—has a discipline procedure that deals internally with behaviour that is unecceptable to him and to his professional colleagues. I am sure that if anyone were to suggest that that right should be surrendered, the hon. and learned


Gentleman would be loud in his protests, because experience has shown how valid that procedure has proved to the legal profession over the years.
I raise my voice in exactly the same way. The House has controlled its destiny and dealt with any misdemeanours that might have been committed by one of its Members. There are other aspects than criminal offences and imprisonment in which the House may exercise its prerogative. I support the amendment, but in all honesty, I should prefer the House, at a later stage, to adopt the amendment that I shall seek leave to introduce on Report.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) knows from a previous debate that I am at one with the intention of his amendment, but I put it to him, and to the Committee, that it is defective in at least three serious respects. That is why I was glad to learn that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) might have the opportunity to move what I regard as the correct amendment to deal with the problem, namely, a provision to eliminate clause 2(2).
The three defects which render the amendment unacceptable for achieving the hon. Gentleman's and my purpose are, first, that it purports to give to the House, by statute, power that is inherent in the House. That is an undesirable proceeding, for what statute has given, statute can take away. If we proceed to confirm to ourselves the privileges that we inherently possess by incorporating them into statute, we shall weaken rather than strengthen them. We derive our right to discipline our Members at our discretion not from statute, but from the inherent nature of a Sovereign assembly that is not subject to be overridden by any external body. That position should be left as it is—as part of what is somewhat inaccurately called the "law of Parliament", but at any rate is not statute law.
Secondly, and conversely but not contradictorily it is also objectionable that one House of Parliament should be given, even by statute, the right to suspend a statute. It is a suspensory power that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central seeks through his amendment, to give to the House. That contravenes another important principle, which is that what statute has done, only statute can undo, and that no single House of Parliament, by its resolution, can undo or suspend the law. Long ago this House succeeded in establishing that the Executive cannot suspend the law. But neither can the House, as a House, suspend the law. I do not think that we should resort to forms that imply that.
The third, and perhaps the lightest, of the difficulties—it emerged more from the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central than from the wording of the amendment—is the notion that we should revise judgments of the courts. I know that Parliament is the High Court of Parliament and, with bated breath be it said, that the Chair is sometimes guilty of referring to the House as a court; but, in fact, it is not a court.
What we express here is opinion, although when expressed in binding form it is authoritative and law-making opinion. It would be undesirable for the impression to be given that if a court should make a finding, and a judge should judge a judgment, the House of Commons, after looking at the circumstances, the sort of chap involved, and what it thought about the judge and the general circumstances, could say that it did not think

it a right judgment by implication, and should be empowered to annul what would otherwise be the consequences of that judgment.
I realise the difficulties under which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central has laboured in attempting to put the point in the form of an amendment at this stage of the Bill, but I believe that it is unsatisfactory and would in all those three respects create undesirable precedents if the Committee were to make the amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is always fascinating to debate issues with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). When he enumerated his three points, I was rather in fear that I would find myself in flat disagreement with him on all three. Therefore, I was glad when he came to his third, because on that point, I strongly agree with him. It would not be right for us to regard any power of override as a power to dissent from a conviction awarded by a court or a sentence awarded by a court. To that extent, I disagree with the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), put his point. I am sure that he will not mind if I say that he and I have talked about the wording of the amendment and that, therefore, if I take something of a paternal attitude towards it, it is because of that.
I cannot find myself at all in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on his first two points. On his first point, he said that the power of the House to expel someone is inherent in the House anyway. That cannot be so. It cannot be the case that, if all the procedures necessary for passing a statute have been gone through and if this House and the other House have said, for example, that an infant cannot be a Member of the House, we in this House, without managing to repeal such a statute, should say that, whatever the statute says: "There's an infant and we are keeping him in the House." I assert that we have no power to do that. It should surely go without saying that if we, as part of Parliament, make a statute, that has a stronger power than a resolution of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman is getting into deep water with regard to a matter which he and the House have been in dispute about over a number of years. He has been arguing that he can be required to do something as a condition of his membership here, on the basis of a resolution. He has now been resisting that proposal and saying that if we want to impose that condition upon him, we have to do it by statute. Therefore, I believe that there is some contradiction in the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. I assert that in the matter of law, he must surely be wrong.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There is a contradiction—but it is an unavoidable one—in my position in the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I assert—here I agree with the point which he is making—that we cannot do by resolution what has to be done by statute. However, I also accept that our privilege of disciplining our own Members is unlimited, and that we have the right, even without cause shown, even to expel one of our number and that power is inherent and derives from the nature of this assembly.

Mr. Cunningham: Put that way, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. That is not the point which is involved here. With respect, it is not a right to expel a Member who might otherwise be able to be here. What is


proposed here is a right to retain a Member who is by statute barred from being here. Therefore, I say to him again that what is proposed in the amendment is not an inherent right. It would need to be in the Bill for us to be able to accept it.
The right hon. Gentleman's second point—these points are so fascinating that I cannot resist going into them, although I shall come to the other remarks that I wanted to make in a moment—is that it is not possible for one House to veto something that has been passed by Parliament. We do it. We do it when we say that the Minister can make an order that will come into effect, but, that, if either House passes a resolution to the contrary, it is nullified.
More directly, we do it in the House of Commons Disqualification Act, to which I shall refer in a moment. It is an exact precedent for the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central has moved. Its wording follows very closely, mutatis mutandis, the wording of the Act. It is, therefore, not true to say that there is anything unprecedented or odd about providing in statute that if one House passes a resolution the effect that would otherwise occur will be nullified. That is possible and is done.
Clearly, to some extent the debate overlaps the subject matter that we touched on earlier in the amendment of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) about appeals. I do not want to go over that ground again, but may I just put in these two points that overlapped the discussion on that occasion? I mention this because it would be possible for the House to use this power of override to deal with cases where an appeal was pending or was being thought about.
The Minister of State said with regard to the earlier amendment that there would be a difficulty in distinguishing between a case where an appeal had actually been launched formally and a case where leave to appeal had been requested but had not yet been given or denied. Actually, in the procedure of the House we acknowledge precisely that distinction with regard to the sub judice rule. If a person has applied for leave to appeal, the subject matter is not debarred by the sub judice rule, as I understand the situation. The sub judice rule comes in again in the House only when leave to appeal is actually granted. That is a distinction—not in statute, I grant, but in something certainly of a quasi-legal nature—which the House has taken account of and which the House itself operates.
Secondly, on that general matter, can we recollect the situation with Mr. Stonehouse, when the House was extremely reluctant to do the natural and sensible thing, which was to expel him, because we feared that it would prejudice his case? Imagine the situation where someone has been convicted but has lodged an appeal and the processes require that he is expelled from the House. For three months at least the constituency is entirely unrepresented, by the way. That is unavoidable.
An election takes place. The person is in that very public manner discredited and his appeal still has not been heard. There is a similarity. I see the Secetary of State shaking his head, but there is at least a similarity worth taking into account, is there not? No normal House without an overriding case on the other side, would say

that, pending the appeal already lodged, it would allow—it would be seen that way by the public—the Member to be automatically deprived of his seat.
What is involved in the amendment is a power in the House to override the disqualification—not to override the verdict of the case, of course, or the sentence, but simply to suspend or to cancel the disqualification which would otherwise take place. It, therefore, does not apply to the nomination procedure. It bites on the case only where a Member is already a Member of the House when he is convicted. No interference with sentence is involved.
The Minister of State in the earlier debate also said that this automatic disqualification took place under the law as it was up to 1967, although he indicated that there was at least one occasion when the House seemed to behave as if it did not. Well, it does not lie really in Ministers' mouths to invoke the law that applied up till 1967. They are not asking us to make the law now as it was up to 1967. They are introducing a totally unprecedented proposal. Therefore, they are estopped from invoking that consideration.

Mr. Budgen: Malapropped.

Mr. Cunningham: I like to use these legal phrases, simply to show that I use them badly and that I am not a lawyer. I say that Ministers are estopped from invoking this consideration. It is a good word, and I am grateful to the lawyers for teaching it to me. I hope that I have used it correctly.
The argument is that no outside authority should, without a right in this House to take a decision on the matter, be able to do something that leads to a Minister ceasing to be a Minister, at least during the period of appeal. I ask hon. Members to consider again the case that I referred to earlier. Since the Minister concerned is still alive and was found to be entirely innocent of the charge brought against him, I shall not mention his name. He was found guilty in 1947 or thereabouts, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. I know that that would not have bitten here, but he could well have been sentenced to 15 months. Under this statute he would have lost his seat. However, his appeal was later allowed and the court made remarks to the effect that the Member was entirely innocent of the charges brought against him and there was no stain on his character.
The Secretary of State may think tonight, although he is not as sure now as he was before—he is a little up a gum tree again—that on balance it is better to do it in the way that the Front Bench has argued. Had things happened as they did in 1947 he would change his mind, because the public and newspaper reaction would be extremely hostile.
This amendment is parallel to the procedure in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. The Act does not, of course, deal with all grounds for disqualification—only those that used to be called offices of profit under the Crown. It provides a long list, far too long for some Conservative candidates to read, as we saw at the last European election. It says that holders of those offices are debarred from being in the House.
But the Act says in section 6(2):
If, in a case falling or alleged to fall within subsection (1) above"—
that is, where a person holds one of those offices—
it appears to the House of Commons that the grounds of disqualification or alleged disqualification under this Act which


subsisted or arose at the material time have been removed, and that it is otherwise proper so to do, that House may by order direct that any such disqualification incurred on those grounds at that time shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section.
It is not an exact parallel. In particular, it says that the grounds of disqualification have to have been removed. I accept that, but it is a power in the House to override the disqualification that would otherwise occur. That power has been used.
When it was discovered that my predecessor in the House had inadvertently disqualified himself, an Act of Parliament had to be passed so that he could remain. Even in my 10 years in the House, we have on at least one occasion passed a resolution under that provision, because of an inadvertent disqualification which had occurred and which had not been noticed. I refer to the case of a Member who is now a Liberal peer. The disqualification was entirely innocently incurred.
All that we are saying is that the House should have the right to do that. It would rarely be wise for the House to use the right, but unless an amendment along these lines is put into the Bill, the House cannot do it, whatever the circumstances.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants the House to retain its traditional power to take decisions about who is deprived of a seat in this House, it can be done only by means of an amendment along these lines. I ask the Secretary of State to consider seriously this amendment, if not now—the brief is already written—afterwards, in the light of the debate.
In the process of doing this business—with which we disagree in principle, but if it has to be done it will be done—we do not want to be walking along the road knocking over one power after another belonging to the House of Commons and one traditional practice after another which has stood the test of time.
On this proposal, therefore, as on the earlier one on appeal, I hope that the Secretary of State will carefully consider the arguments, and I hope that, if not now, then before the matter is considered in the House of Lords, he will decide that these are two wise concessions which he ought to make.

Mr. James A. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine, may I seek your help and guidance? I have made general reference to the point, but perhaps I may spell it out.
As I understand it, the amendment seeks to allow a statute law to be created and then to override it. This has been well explained by those who have spoken in support of it from the Front Bench and by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). My point is that it creates something and then disqualifies what it does.
My manuscript amendment, if accepted—I appreciate that there are problems about it—would not create something and then create a machinery to deal with what it had created. It would virtually return to the disqualification referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
I am therefore in a dilemma, as I am sure other hon. Members are, too. If the manuscript amendment were not selected for debate it would colour the way in which I would vote if a Division were called. If, on the other hand, it were allowed, there are a number of issues that I would wish to take into account. I might then wish to vote neither one way nor the other to show my feelings about it.
A matter of some principle is involved. The amendment before us raises the question of overriding, whereas my amendment would do nothing of the kind, nor would it create anything new. It seeks to retain the status quo.

The First Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman well knows why his amendment has not been selected for consideration in Committee. I now have the information to pass on to him that Mr. Speaker has not selected it for consideration on Report.

Mr. Mayhew: This group of amendments deserves careful consideration. It may be helpful to remind ourselves of what each would achieve before I reply to the important points that have been made.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to ensure that a Member of the House of Commons who becomes disqualified by the Bill will be required to vacate his seat only if the disqualification is confirmed by the House.
Amendment No. 16, moved by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has the purpose of allowing the House of Commons, by order—which may be cancelled or amended by a subsequent order—to direct that the disqualification of a Member of the House of Commons may be disregarded for the period provided by the order.
Amendment No. 17, in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) proposes to defer the further disqualification of a person elected to or nominated for election to the House of Commons until an order relating to the particular election or nomination has been laid before the House, and to provide that the disqualification shall be void if the order is not approved by affirmative resolution within 14 days.
Lastly, new clause 2, with which we have not really dealt, has the same overall kind of purpose—to allow the Secretary of State, by order, to waive the disqualification for membership of and election to the House of Commons in respect of
any person, country, or class of persons or countries.
The overall purpose of these amendments is to provide a kind of fallback safeguard. I think that those who have proposed the amendments are really saying that if one is to provide a disqualification for remaining a Member of the House of Commons, and if one is to provide as a disqualification for nomination or election to the House of Commons the fact that a person is serving a sentence of more than 12 months in the circumstances caught by the Bill, the House of Commons should be permitted to retain its residual power to determine who shall remain a Member. That is really the point, and it is an argument that I greatly respect.
However, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) illustrated a major danger inherent in these arguments, because if we have said "Very well, by statute this shall be a disqualification", it is dangerous to allow the House of Commons, in the interests of its own Members, to say "But this shall not apply for a certain time, or in these circumstances, if we say so". That is not a sound way to legislate.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) pulled my leg in a nice way about lawyers having the power to regulate themselves. Indeed they do, and it is right that self-regulation should continue to be available in the professions so long as they show that they are willing and able to operate such self-regulation in a conscientious way. But no power of self-regulation enjoyed by lawyers,


or by any other professional body of which I know, permits them to override the operation of statute. If a lawyer is sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, no power of self-regulation vested in the Bar Council or the Law Society will get him out of one day of it, and quite right, too.

Mr. George Cunningham: But we are not suggesting that.

Mr. Mayhew: But the hon. Gentleman was hoping to find some means of twitting me.

Mr. McNamara: But no rule of the Bar Council or Law Society automatically expels the member. The matter must go before the Bar Council.

Mr. Mayhew: The automatic expulsion that we are discussing would be contained in the Bill once it became a statute. That is where automatic expulsion arises, and if statute imposes a penalty it is not right to permit it to be suspended, qualified, put on one side or overridden in any way, even at the instigation of this House. That is the issue before us.
We should also bear in mind that the trend has been to regulate by statute matters of qualification for Members of the house. That trend goes back to the eighteenth century. Before that, it was the custom to deal with these matters at the time. I would not say that they were dealt with on their merits, but at any rate they were discussed in the context of party advantage. It was because this was seen to constitute an abuse that Parliament decided that in future the right approach was to regulate these matters by statute, so that we would not have to determine each case in circumstances that might or might not be embarrassing or impose a temptation to determine them according to party advantage. It was decided that the criteria should be laid down in advance. That is a sound basis for dealing with these matters.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) referred to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, which now deals with what used to be called the "offices of profit under the Crown". But that illustrates my point, because they are now dealt with by statute. We now know by looking at the statute the circumstances under which we would be disqualified if we take one of those offices, and they are dealt with there and then.
The hon. Gentleman fairly indicated that a qualification is written into the statute that if it appears to the House of Commons that the grounds have been removed, an exemption can be made. But even that is not on all fours with the principle that is now proposed. We are being asked to allow the House a bite at the cherry after, by our own legislative process, we have created the statute that sets up the disqualification.
I believe that this issue goes back to the one that we discussed and decided on the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Are we or are we not content that this disqualification should

attach to sitting Members, as it is proposed that it should be attached to those who are seeking nomination and those who are seeking election? It goes back to that. The argument that I put forward then is the argument that I put forward now—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Representation of the People Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Mayhew: I have entirely forgotten what I was saying, but I know what I want to say in conclusion—that it is, of course, right to test what we are proposing against a hypothetical case. But I must tell the hon. Member for Kirkdale that if we were to test it to destruction against a hypothesis such as the case of the maverick judge, who sentences someone to a year and a day in circumstances that are compatible only with preventing someone standing for Parliament, the House of Commons would not be content to put up with that. It would be open to the House of Commons to put through the House in one day a Bill that would undo the consequences of such a sentence. In extreme cases the House of Commons would surely be entitled to take extreme remedial measures.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mayhew: No, because I want to finish. I think that we have spent long enough on the amendment and that the House as a whole wants to get on. Overall, in this group of amendments we are facing a great danger. If it happens once it will in time happen again, and there will then have to be established by some means a system by which the House of Commons can apply this jurisdiction consistently. Yet how can that be done?
As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) indicated the House of Commons will have to form an opinion of the culpability of the hon. Member in question. It will have to form an opinion of the likelihood of his getting off on appeal. Perhaps it will form an opinion of the judge concerned. Then, because it did so on that occasion, why should it not do so the next time? In waters of that kind, we are faced with impossible difficulties.
My right hon. Friend will give careful thought to what has been said in the debate, as he undertook to do in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. I cannot say that we shall do that with a commitment to accept the principle of these amendments but we shall think about them carefully. For the moment, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment.

Mr. Budgen: I supported the Bill on Second Reading with considerable reluctance because I distrust rushed legislation. I have listened to the debate, which is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said, intimately connected with the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), and there is no doubt that the general arguments advanced by my hon. Friend were much stronger in relation to clause 2(2) than they were on the wider point he put forward.
My hon. and learned Friend is clearly uneasy about subsection (2). It would be monstrous if the Bill—arising, as it does, from rushed legislation in 1967 which was not properly considered—has to be rushed through because there is insufficient time to deal with a genuine difficulty. It would bring the House of Commons into contempt.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary often appeals to the loyalty of Members of the Tory Party. It is a proper and genuine appeal which is usually responded to, but our loyalty cannot be called upon at every turn, and if we are required to put through legislation about which we have doubts when a problem is not dealt with because of the shortage of time, it will be more difficult for us next time round to support rushed legislation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will have urgent consultations with the parliamentary draftsman to deal with a serious anomaly.

Mr. Whitelaw: I reinforce what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said. Of course, I shall consider the points that have been made on this issue. It would be possible to make a change in another place, and I shall consider this, but I must do so at this stage without commitment. I undertake to consider what has been said.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what he said, but it does not go far enough. This is now not a Government matter; it is a House of Commons matter.
I wish to speak briefly on the comments made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If I gave the impression of wanting to usurp the power of the court, that was not my intention, and I apologise to him and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). On the question of giving ourselves power by statute, power here is being taken away by statute and we are seeking to put it back.
The Minister of State, in answer to an interjection, stressed that a member of his profession may be sentenced and sent to gaol, but there has been no instance of disbarment. That applies also to a member of the Law Society. If a member of the medical profession commits a heinous offence, he will be disciplined by his professional body, as will members of many other professions. On occasion they employ members of the legal profession to defend them. I am not suggesting that that should happen here. A Member of the House of Commons might well be convicted of a serious offence.
Let us remember that we are not necessarily talking about offences that have anything to do with the situation in Ireland. We must get that out of our minds. We are dealing not with a terrorist situation but with one that could arise in any way. That is one of the Bill's big faults. It goes from the particular to the general, and that is not a good thing in any legislation.
Despite what the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have said, we should press the issue to a Division

because this is a serious issue. Although the Minister may properly appeal to the loyalty of his right hon. and hon. Friends, I hope that some of them will have listened carefully to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 48, Noes 132.

Division No. 233]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Maxton, John


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Molyneaux, James


Beith, A. J.
Morton, George


Canavan, Dennis
O'Halloran, Michael


Cook, Robin F.
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Penhaligon, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Richardson, Jo


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Dixon, Donald
Sheerman, Barry


Dormand, Jack
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Dunlop, John
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Soley, Clive


English, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Foster, Derek
Stoddart, David


Freud, Clement
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Winnick, David


Haynes, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hooley, Frank



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


McKelvey, William
Mr. Ernie Ross




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ancram, Michael
Goodhew, Victor


Arnold, Tom
Gower, Sir Raymond


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Greenway, Harry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Hon A.


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Best, Keith
Hannam,John


Blackburn, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Paul


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawksley, Warren


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heddle, John


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Kilfedder, James A.


Bruce-Gardyne, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Buck, Antony
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Butcher, John
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lee, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Costain, Sir Albert
McCrindle, Robert


Cranborne, Viscount
MacGregor, John


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
McQuarrie, Albert


Dover, Denshore
Major, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Marlow, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mates, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mayhew, Patrick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Moore, John






Morgan, Geraint
Stanley, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stevens, Martin


Murphy, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Peter


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Newton, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Onslow, Cranley
Thorne, Neil (Ilord South)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Paisley, Rev Ian
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waddington, David


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Renton, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wickenden, Keith


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Alastair Goodlad

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3

DURATION OF ACT

'This Act shall lapse at the end of twelve months from the date on which it is passed.'.—[Mr. Winnick.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Winnick: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take new clause 1—Duration.

Mr. Winnick: The new clause accepts that the Bill will be passed. I oppose the measure and I believe that it should have as short a life as possible.
The reason why the Bill was introduced has been touched on many times in our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee. But for the by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, there would have been no Bill. It was never suggested that such a Bill should come before the House and the Home Secretary never suggested that a glaring anomaly existed that allowed prisoners to be elected to Parliament. In effect, we are saying that the Bill is necessary because a prisoner won the by-election. In that case, if the situation changes the Bill should come to an end.
I do not see any reason why the Bill should continue on the statute book if circumstances change, if the hunger strike comes to an end and if there is no question of another by-election of the type seen a few months ago. I accept that there might be a case for a different measure. Although a person in prison should be able, if he so wishes, to stand for election, I accept that there is a case whereby that person would not be able to sit in the House of Commons. That could be made clear in a different sort of measure from that now being introduced.
My main objection to the Bill is the manner in which a person is disqualified from standing for election. It is not

concerned with the question whether a prisoner should sit in the House of Commons, There seem to be reservations on the Conservative Benches among hon. Members who rationalise the position by saying that although they have reservations there in no alternative to the Bill. That is not my view. If, however, hon. Members have reservations, I hope that they will support the new clause standing in my name, which says that the life of the Bill should come to an end after 12 months.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman makes the point clearly and fairly that he is basically against the whole principle of the Bill but that if it goes through it should be limited to 12 months. My case, based on my belief that the Bill is right and necessary, rests on two points. The disqualification that was removed by the Criminal Law Act 1967 was a mistake, as I believe the House has come to accept. The disqualification that existed before 1967 was not subject to any 12 months' limit.
I accept that the disqualification for nomination is a new point. I believe that it stands with the other. It is right that the disqualification should be kept permanently. I do not believe that the principle of a review after a year is consistent with the views of those who believe in the principle of the Bill. I cannot accept the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. McNamara: I have only a few words to say. I think that the Bill is wrongly titled. We would not have had the Bill if Bobby Sands had not won the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election. What we have before us is the Bobby Sands Memorial Bill. That is what it amounts to. We have succeeded in giving the Provisional IRA its biggest propaganda victory since internment. This is a sad day for democracy and a sad day for the House.

Mr. Winnick: This is undoubtedly a panic measure. When the by-election takes place in the near future in Fermanagh and South Tyrone one will find that those who supported Mr. Sands and proposed him as a candidate will find other means to express their views despite the Bill's becoming an Act of Parliament.
It would be foolish and naive of us to take the view that because this measure will become law the supporters of the Provisional IRA will not be able to find some other way of causing the maximum embarrassment to the Government. When the House rushes in with a panic measure—the Second Reading was taken on Monday and we are completing the remaining stages today—it tends to make a mistake. I should prefer the Government's energies to be devoted to trying to settle the hunger strike. It is far more important to defuse the crisis in Northern Ireland and to try to bring an end to the hunger strike that is taking place in the Province.
It has been reported in the press that there is a possibility that the late Mr. Sands' agent will be a candidate in the forthcoming by-election. If that is to be so he will hardly be affected by this measure. It is unfortunate that, arising from what occurred in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the Government have responded in such a manner.
At the end of the day, Mr. Sands won the by-election. It is no good saying "What about the people who did not vote for him or who abstained?" The system that we have, which I support, whereby the person who receives the greater number of votes is duly elected, led to Mr. Sands winning in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Of course we did not like the result, but that was the choice of the people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. However dishonest the argument, the Provisional IRA will say in Northern Ireland, and certainly abroad, in countries such as France and the United States, that the electoral law has been changed by the Brits because of the success of the late Mr. Sands in winning a by-election. I am convinced that what we are doing is wrong and I shall be happy to vote against the Bill.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Unlike the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I shall support Her Majesty's Government when the House divides. This is not a panic measure. There is no panic on the Government Benches, or in Her Majesty's Government. Instead of giving advice to the Provisional IRA on how it may best continue its propaganda campaign, the hon. Gentleman might have said to it "Here are young men being sacrificed by the godfathers of terrorism in a cruel and callous manner for a propaganda exercise." Then he might have said "There will be no giving way on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There will not be any favouring of political terrorists in Her Majesty's prisons, but there is democracy in the United Kingdom and there is democracy in the Irish Republic. It is open to these people who hold this view to contest their cause democratically and to submit themselves to argument. We would be willing for them to do that." He would be much better advised to give that sort of counsel to such people than to suggest ways in which they might continue their agitation.

Mr. Winnick: Earlier on, when the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) was not in the Chamber, I made it clear that I was totally opposed to terrorism. I am opposed to the hunger strike. I am opposed to political status being given. However, like the Catholic bishops in Ireland, in the statement that they issued last weekend, I believe that ways and means could be found, without the granting of political status, to settle the hunger strike. The hon. Gentleman should not try to smear me and my hon. Friends as supporters of the IRA. We are not. We are totally opposed to their methods and to their terrorism. We are concerned with finding a peaceful solution to the present crisis and to securing the future of the Six Counties.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I regret that Third Reading has moved towards a discussion of the general problems of Northern Ireland which, while they have an association with some of the consequences of the Bill, are not contained within it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I hope that the debate will not take that direction.

Mr. Dunn: I was not intending to go that way. I regret, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you intervened during my remarks rather than earlier. It is a matter of opinion. I say that in good humour.
I give an unqualified welcome to the Bill. It fulfils a need that has been expressed by many in recent times and was instanced by the by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. While I do not share some of the strictures passed by my hon. Friends, I understand their position. I do not take away from them the sincerity that I hope they would afford to me—as, indeed, they have done during the debate.
When we talk of terrorists gaining advantage from the Bill, we are talking of all forms of terrorism. It appears that some hon. Members think that there is only one category of terrorist. There are many. If the Bill deals with them all, so much the better. I think that it does. What happened in Fermanagh and South Tyrone was an offence to most people. The way that it has been dealt with, with the reservations that have been expressed across the Chamber—the Home Secretary has agreed to consider them, while not making a commitment about the results of the considerations, should they come to fruition—will enable the Bill to meet all needs and should satisfy most hon. Members. It will give some consolation to those watching our proceedings carefully to see what we will do.
I hope that the Bill will be improved in another place. I hope that further protections can be made. I hope that some of the doubts and fears that have been expressed will be satisfactorily dealt with in another place. Until such time as the Bill returns to the House, I give it a fair welcome.

Mr. Clement Freud: ; I made my opposition to the Bill clear on Second Reading. It is for very much the same reasons as those expresssed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It should be made clear that the Bill is not about terrorism, although it may have been triggered off by that. It is a fundamental Bill which ignores the rights of the electorate and allows the Government to decide something that the electorate should be allowed to decide.
I want to say one thing to the Home Secretary, and I ask him to refer to it when he replies to the debate. If he is as passionate for people to be represented at parliamentary level as he says he is, will he give his word that, in future, writs for parliamentary by-elections will not be used for party political effect but will be served within a given number of weeks of the death, ennoblement or resignation of a Member?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall be brief. I supported the Bill om Second Reading. I am proud to support it on Third reading. I hope that it reaches the statute book with the utmost speed. We have listened to debates in which, quite properly, legal considerations have been put forward and constitutional matters sincerely discussed. When we have finished with all the nice, cosy debates on constitutional niceties and legalities, it comes down to the fact that there are those in Northern Ireland who have decided, notwithstanding all the constitutional niceties or legalities, that they will change the law and the destiny of their people by the use of the gun and the bomb and by the murder of their fellow citizens.
We have an absolute and overriding responsibility, however much hon. Members say that that may have nothing to do with it. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), along with every other hon. Member in the


House, bears the joint responsibility for the forces of law and order which have been committed in the name of this Parliament—not this Government, but this Parliament—to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland.
I believe that there should be a different answer to the problem in Northern Ireland. While the House considers the present policy to be the right one and sends the soldiers there to uphold that policy, I cannot share the views that it would be right for those who have turned to the bomb, to the gun and to murder to hold sway.
We have to do only one thing in our consideration of the Bill—that is, to honour the sacrifice of those we have sent to Northern Ireland to die in upholding our requirements. That is why I support the Bill. I believe that it is indefensible that anyone associated with the murder of a member of the security forces carrying out the duties imposed upon him by this Parliament should have the right to stand for election to this House of Commons. That is a travesty of democracy. It is a denial of all the constitutional niceties. I would be ashamed to be associated with anything which would make it easy for that sort of murdering people to sit in the House.

Mr. Hattersley: When we debated, the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday I said that I was deeply opposed to it on the principle of practice. Everything that I have heard over the past four days has intensified my opposition.
I repeat now what I said on Monday—that in my view the decision as to who should be elected to this place is a decision for the electorate of individual constituencies, and not for the House of Commons. In saying that, I confess that if there was one vote about which I have had doubts during this afternoon and this evening it was the vote on amendment No. 16. Whilst on balance I went into the Lobby to support that amendment, I thought that there was great strength in the Minister of State's argument that if we are to have general rules about who should sit here, the House of Commons should not be given the ability and power to override those general rules.
Perhaps I was wrong to vote in the way that I did. I say again that my view is that the decision about who should sit in this place is a decision for electorates and not for the House of Commons itself. On those grounds alone I would vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
I feel that in Committee we discussed the Bill in terms of its principles—to which I object, and which I reject—but not sufficiently in terms of its practice. To be more precise, the only discussion of the Bill's practice has come from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who assumed that they were speaking for the British people, which I think is an assumption that we should all make with a little humility and, therefore, some qualification. They said on behalf of the British people that the British people believe that the Bill is right in terms of the attack on terrorism in Northern Ireland.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading. If I believed that this was a blow against terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland I might even be prepared to vote for the Bill, notwithstanding my strong principles concerning the

theory on which it is based. However, many people believe that far from defeating terrorism the Bill will help the propaganda cause on which terrorism is based.
It is easy for my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford to denigrate those of us who oppose the Bill by talking about nice, cosy debates in the Chamber. It is even easier for him to announce that he is against the gun, the bomb and the murderer. I do not know any hon. Member who is not against the gun, the bomb and the murderer in Northern Ireland.
What I do know is that my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who have spent much of the past five years not in nice, cosy debates in the House of Commons but in fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland and taking substantial risks as they did so, believe, as I believe, that the Bill will not further the cause that we support, which is the suppression and end of terrorism, but will positively help terrorism. I tell the Home Secretary that I shall vote against the Bill tonight, not least because of what I fear will be its practical applications.
These are my last words to the Home Secretary. He asked earlier—rhetorically, I suspect—why I complained so much that he had got it wrong and confessed to getting it wrong. Why was I not taking the normal Opposition attitude? One of my great complaints about the Bill is that, although he has got it wrong, I do not feel entitled to rejoice. When a Minister makes a mistake I normally express delight and hope that the mistake will be multiplied, but I fear that the mistake made in introducing the Bill, and the mistake over its contents, will result only in serving an interest that both the Home Secretary and I oppose. The Government's shortcomings in the Bill cause me no pleasure whatever. They will help a propaganda campaign to which I am deeply opposed and help to give success to an organisation that I am desperately anxious to see brought to the speediest possible end.
I shall therefore vote against the Bill, partly because of my strong views on the principle involved, but also because I share the views of all who have spoken. We want to see the IRA and all that it stands for replaced by genuine democratic debate and political discussion in Northern Ireland. My fear is that the Bill will not bring about that end.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has made clear his opposition to the Bill in principle. Although I do not agree with him, I fully understand that, feeling that way, he will vote against the Bill.
However, when it comes to making a judgment that the Bill will give a propaganda weapon to the IRA—which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) also makes—I can only say that there are two views on the issue. I have not been in Northern Ireland since my responsibility for the Province ceased at the end of 1973. But, with whatever knowledge that I may have of conditions there, I discount that judgment absolutely.
Although I am eight years out of date and am not prepared to back my judgment on issues in Northern Ireland, I am prepared to back the judgment of those who have the responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and right hon. and hon. Members who are closer to the Northern Ireland scene than I have been for some time take the view that the Bill will


deny a propaganda weapon to the IRA. They regard this as of considerable importance. That view may be disputed, but it is a view held strongly by my right hon. Friend, who has the major responsibility for Northern Ireland on behalf of the Government and the House. That is his view, and I am prepared to back it.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says that when we pass the Bill the IRA will find another candidate. Perhaps it will, but it will not be able to use a convicted terrorist, in prison for his terrorist activities. The IRA wants the propaganda value of such a man, and it is wise to deny it that. That is the purpose of the Bill.
I want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who expressed what I feel much better than I am likely to express it. The only other hon. Member who has spoken whom I want to mention is the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who made his position on the Bill clear on Second Reading but did not make his views one way or the other heard very much in Committee. However, that is his affair.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about writs. The question of moving writs does not come within the purview of the Bill and, therefore, is not strictly relevant. Indeed, I doubt whether it is in order on Third Reading. If the hon. Gentleman looked at my record on the moving of writs when I had responsibility of that kind, a long time ago, he would find that I acted very much as he now suggests. However, that is even longer ago than my experience of Northern Ireland, so I do not rely too heavily on it.
I believe that by passing the Bill we shall deny the IRA a major propaganda weapon. It has sought, by using convicted terrorists in prison, to distort our democratic system for its own publicity and propaganda purposes. There is no doubt that that was the IRA's object. I believe that the Bill will deny it that propaganda weapon.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes that doing that will be in the best interests of Northern Ireland at this time. Beyond that, I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that there is a profound feeling in the country at large that it is an outrage that terrorists who have been convicted of serious offences should seek by our democratic process to become Members of the House. I believe that the British people are profoundly against that. That is another strong justification for the Bill, and I hope that it will be passed.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 36.

Division No. 234]
[10.51 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Antony


Beith, A. J.
Budgen, Nick


Best, Keith
Butcher, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bright, Graham
Colvin, Michael





Cope, John
Morgan, Geraint


Costain, Sir Albert
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Cranborne, Viscount
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Murphy, Christopher


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Neale, Gerrard


Dover, Denshore
Needham, Richard


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Dunlop, John
Newton, Tony


Dunn, James A.
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Eyre, Reginald
Paisley, Rev Ian


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Pattie, Geoffrey


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Percival, Sir Ian


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Renton, Tim


Goodhew, Victor
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Goodlad, Alastair
Roper, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Greenway, Harry
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hannam,John
Shersby, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sims, Roger


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Speller, Tony


Hawkins, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hawksley, Warren
Sproat, Iain


Heddle, John
Squire, Robin


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Stanley, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kershaw, Anthony
Stevens, Martin


Kilfedder, James A.
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lang, Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thompson, Donald


Lawrence, Ivan
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Le Marchant, Spencer
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waddington, David


Lyell, Nicholas
Wakeham, John


McCrindle, Robert
Waldegrave, Hon William


MacGregor, John
Watson, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wellbeloved, James


McQuarrie, Albert
Wells, Bowen


Major, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Marlow, Tony
Wickenden, Keith


Mates, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Mather, Carol
Winterton, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Mayhew, Patrick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)



Moate, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, James
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Moore, John
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.




NOES


Alton, David
Howells, Geraint


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Canavan, Dennis
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin F.
Mikardo, Ian


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Morton, George


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Penhaligon, David


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Jo


Dobson, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dormand, Jack
Sheerman, Barry


English, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Snape, Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Hooley, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)






Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Woolmer, Kenneth
Mr. Kevin McNamara and



Mr. David Winnick.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions to approve statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES

That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 1 June, be approved.

That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 2 June, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — International Computers Ltd.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton,]

Mr. David Mellor: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the future of International Computers Ltd. I do so because I have the honour to have the headquarters of this fine company in my constituency. I am also glad to be supported tonight by my hon. Friends who also have ICL plants in their constituencies.
The subject of the Adjournment debate is:
the future of International Computers Ltd.
I want to make it clear at the outset that I strongly believe that ICL has a future. This debate is about confidence. It gives us the opportunity to express our confidence in the new management of the company and it also gives my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology the opportunity to express the confidence that I know he feels in that new management.
It is crucial that that confidence should be based not on empty optimism but on realism. In order to arrive at a sense of optimism about the company's future it is necessary, therefore, to traverse some not so pleasant ground and to consider why the company has found itself in difficulties in the last few months, for unless the lessons are learnt from what has been a catastrophic decline in the company's fortunes, the future of the company will plainly be very questionable.
For most of its existence ICL has been a very successful company. Formed in late 1968, it has from that date been Britain's one major computer manufacturer. The 10 years or more that followed its creation in 1968—with the exception of one brief hiccup in 1972— were years of success and schievement. The company was expanding by about 20 per cent. per annum—a fine figure, even in advance of the extraordinary development of the rest of the computer industry and the growth rate of all computer companies during those years.
It is idle to pretend that something very serious has not gone wrong with ICL over the last few months. It is difficult to know why a company that as recently as 12 months ago was still quite a favourite on the stock market—and was still a favoured tip for a number of those in the City who know about these things—should suddenly have gone into a downward spiral that has caused such distress to its many admirers, both in this place and outside, and placed in jeopardy the livelihoods of a significant proportion of its work force, some of them my constituents.
It is extraordinary that there should have been this collapse at a time when, although all computer companies have experienced some difficulties, it is generally and rightly thought that the information technology industry is on the verge of yet another great expansion. The reason, one suspects, can only be that the management of ICL was slow in coming to terms with the impact of the international recession. I stress "the international recession", for while it is true that ICL has been dependent upon a substantial share of the British market for its output, it has depended just as much on exports. Indeed, over 50 per cent. of its present output is in terms of exports, and the problems with the European market—the


international aspect of the recession—have been as much to blame as anything that has happened here. That is crucial.
There are a few people who are unable to resist the temptation to try to turn to political advantage the misfortunes of other people and who have chosen to say that the problems of ICL are yet another manifestation of the failure of the Government's economic policy, but the truth is that the international recession has brought it about.
The question that should detain us is whether the international recession should have caught ICL so unaware. I do not believe that it should. The reason why these problems have arisen is still a matter for debate, but I believe that it can be said that for too long the former management of the company concentrated on volume rather than profit. When the crunch came the management structure that had been developed was sluggish in responding to the dramatic need to change course that was forced upon the management. That is what brought ICL to the difficult pass at which it arrived some four months ago, when my hon. Friend the Minister was faced with a difficult decision.
I am not gloating over the misfortunes of the company. I feel a great deal of pride in its association with my constituency. It is crucial to realise that ICL cannot be called the victim merely of international or domestic circumstances.
It is the prevailing view amongst those in the media who study these matters, amongst a large proportion of the work force, certainly those to whom I have spoken, and amongst competitors that the ICL management must bear a considerable share of the blame. It was perfectly right that my hon. Friend the Minister should have indicated to the company, as I believe he must have done, that changes needed to be made at the very top.
Changes have been made, and I welcome three distinguished British business men who have joined the board of the company, especially the managing director, Mr. Wilmot, who already, in a few weeks, has made a profound impression on those in the company and outside in terms of the positive ideas that he has for reviving its fortunes.
The question has to be posed and cannot be shirked: have the management changes gone far enough? There are others at the top of the company who bear as large a share of the blame for what went wrong with the company as did the chairman and managing director, who have already tendered their resignation. It is seriously in question whether ICL will be able to revive, even under the inspired leadership of Mr. Wilmot, if further changes are not made.
There is bound to be the suspicion that there are those occupying very senior posts within the company who still have a vested interest in trying to justify what happened in the immediate past. If there is any justification for people at the top of great companies deriving substantially more pecuniary benefit from their work than those further down—and I believe that there is—it has to be that that benefit is derived because they take the risk. They excercise their management skills and if they are successful they derive the benefit.
The alternative must apply. I do not think that it is proper for senior managers—I do not propose to specify whom I mean, but I think it will be clear to anyone who knows the company—to remain in the company and

expect others lower down to be made redundant when the problems have arisen as the result of a substantial degree of management error in running the company.
I come to the redundancies. Plainly, they have worried me, as they have worried many hon. Members whose constituents are affected. It is easy for a constituency Member of Parliament to object on principle to redundancies, but, having spent a good deal of time with the company over the last few days, I am convinced that the case for the redundancies, painful though they are, is made out.
There is one statistic that speaks volumes. The proportion of revenue devoted to the payroll of ICL is 51 per cent. From the figures of ICL's rivals a different picture emerges: NCR 44 per cent, Digital Equipment 42 per cent., Control Data 43 per cent., and Univac 44 per cent., making the non-ICL average 43 per cent., as against ICL's 51 per cent. That is clear evidence of overmanning—overmanning that goes back over a number of years, far further than does the present recession.
It may be of interest to know that the ICL payroll average from 1973 to 1977 was 44 per cent. of revenue. It is, as some people have suspected, during the time since the unfortunate retirement of Mr. Cross as managing director of ICL that these problems have arisen. I think that we shall find people in the company now more than prepared to accept that it has been overmanned, and that overmanning has led it into difficulties, so that when the cold winds of the recession have blown the company has been less able to cope than have so many of its rivals that do not find themselves in this position.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. A major part of the ICL plant is situated on my constituency. I find that since the retirement of Mr. Cross there have been no quarterly meetings, as there were in his time. Mr. Cross used to conduct quarterly meetings between employees and management, and explain what was happening in ICL.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on the difficult situation in which employees below management level find themselves. The trade unions concerned came to see my hon. Friend and I the other day to explain the situation. They might accept redundancies in order to save ICL. They are loyal to the company, and have a constructive approach. However, even under the new management, the situation has not been explained to the employees. Unless the employees and the management work together—and management must play its part in getting them together—we shall not see the revival of ICL that the country, my constituency and ICL's employees earnestly desire.

Mr. Mellor: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I share his concern, and I am sure that Mr. Wilmot is equally aware of the problem. Having been privy to some of his thoughts, in discussions with ICL management, I can say that he is making it plain to all the work force that the company will pull through only if everyone pulls his weight.
Plainly, my hon. Friend the Minister has done all that could reasonably be expected of him. Within the company there is no criticism of the Government. It is recognised that they have done everything possible. The Government must take a great share of the credit for the fact that ICL has been able to attract its three distinguished managers.


It is equally right that my hon. Friend should not give ICL a blank cheque. There must be a limit to Government assistance in terms of time. It is crucial that everyone at this stage should recognise that ICL is drinking in "Last Chance Saloon".
Painful though redundancies are, such decisions should have been taken some time ago. ICL must slim down. Although we are concerned about the 17 per cent. who will lose their jobs, we are also concerned about the 83 per cent. who will remain. To delay the redundancies is perhaps to be no more sensible than the surgeon who delays cutting off a gangrenous limb and by doing so puts the rest of the body in jeopardy.
I end on a positive note. Even in the midst of its troubles, ICL is attracting great orders. Only in the last two weeks the National Girobank placed an order for £1·7 million-worth of computers. Colonial Life, one of Australia's largest insurance companies, has placed an order for £3 million-worth of computers. Marks and Spencer's has announced that ICL is to be part of its five-year computerisation plan. It has just placed an order for £1 million-worth of computers. Viva Drugstores has bought equipment to the value of £¼ million. That has taken place in the last week.
Under the new management, I am sure that ICL will be able to revive. I look to my hon. Friend to give such further aid, assistance and advice as is necessary, and I am sure that he will give it. There is no hon. Member with a better understanding of the information/technology industry than he. It gives us hope that at such a difficult time for the company there is a very well-informed Minister in charge of its destiny.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I shall add only a few remarks to those so ably uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister on the tough decision that he took about ICL. ICL is a strategic industry and must be regarded as one of the nation's prime assets. I hope that this brief debate will result in a clear and public Government statement which those who work for and with ICL will recognise as a clear and, as my hon. Friend said, realistic presentation of the facts. As has been said, ICL has worked up splendid overseas markets. It has admirable products. One could argue about whether the company has moved as quickly as it could have done in response to market needs, but it nevertheless has an admirable base for an excellent international business. In addition, it is highly regarded in its field.
As a former marketing man, I tend to feel that the most drastic review of leadership and of approach is needed on the marketing side. The company may have been unduly product-oriented instead of marketing-oriented. I hope that an improvement in that direction will follow the Minister's lead.
This Adjournment debate gives us the chance of spelling out the future for ICL. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney—I have half the headquarters at the other end of Putney bridge in my Fulham constituency—I offer my warmest congratulations and good wishes to the company and to the senior managers who have joined the board. I look forward to a return to prosperity for ICL and I applaud my hon. Friend the Minister for having made this

possible and having enabled ICL to remain as a British company rather than be merged with or taken over by a company from overseas.

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) for the positive terms in which he has raised the future of International Computers Ltd. He started his speech by talking of the future. That is the importance of this short debate.
The Government's loan guarantee support for ICL, in an amount of up to £200 million for up to two years, is, in my view, the constructive and sensible way to help the company in its present difficulties. I assure my hon. Friend that it is no blank cheque, to use his words. It provides a vital breathing space in which ICL can conduct a thorough review of its business activities and take the actions necessary to bring recovery in the interests of its customers, shareholders and employees.
Since the Government's loan guarantee began, there have been important top management changes at ICL. I have noted what my two hon. Friends have to say about the new management team. No doubt the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will be considered carefully by the company.
The Government fully supported these changes. They also welcomed the stated objectives of the new management to re-establish ICL on a basis of strength so that it can continue to compete successfully at home and abroad. I am sure that the changes being introduced will involve the sort of consultation and co-operation that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) recalled used to operate in the plant in his constituency.
The crucial first task that the new management has set is a restoration of profitability. Earlier this month the company reported its half-year results for the period to March 1981, showing a pre-tax loss of £33·9 million, which included a pre-tax loss for the first quarter of £24·4 million. Restoration of profitability will be achieved only by the efforts of the company itself. The determined steps that are now being taken deserve the strongest support of all those who have at heart the long-term interests of ICL, particularly the interests of its employees, as both my hon. Friends who intervened made clear.
In this last respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned the company's proposed manpower reduction programme. Redundancies are always unfortunate, as are any hard measures which cause distress to those affected. But job losses are often an inescapable price of restoring financial health in the interests of preserving jobs for the great majority. My hon. Friend mentioned the 83 per cent. staying in employment.
If ICL is to remain competitive, it recognises that it has no alternative except to match its costs, including labour costs, to the projected scale of its business. The use of new technology, which has increasingly to be employed in the computer industry—as well as in many other industries—to achieve competitiveness, has also been reducing the labour content of ICL's products and services. I very much hope that the work force will decide not to take industrial action over the redundancies.
In the light of these points, the company acknowledges that it is overmanned. This is a fact to be remembered by


any hon. Members on the Opposition side who, if they were in power, would look to the Government's purse as a way for ICL to avoid the redundancies. Such action could be only a short-term and dangerous palliative. By putting at risk the management's efforts to chart a return to genuine—not cosmetic—profitability, it would do nothing to help ICL's position for the longer term and would offer no genuine reassurance to the company's employees. It would no nothing for important customers' confidence in the company.
I stress that the Government, of course, want to see ICL succeed. The Government have their own important user interest. That is why we have afforded to ICL our temporary loan guarantee support. But the task now for the Government, and for everyone concerned for ICL's future, is to throw wholehearted support behind the company's own remedies for restoring its competitive position.
Restoration of genuine profitability is also the responsible way to safeguard the considerable customer investment in ICL products. From the strengthened position that return to profitability will bring, the company's strategy will be further to improve its product range by the pursuit of collaborative ventures with other companies.
The House will know from the considerable press publicity that ICL recently examined with certain overseas manufacturers the possibility of partnership. No formal proposal for partnership was received by the company, but it became apparent from its talks that an acceptable arrangement for ICL's shareholders, customers and employees was not readily available. That was particularly true in relation to the retention of significant research and development and manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom and to the safeguarding of past and future customer investment in ICL products. The new management team appointed in early May therefore terminated the discussions, a decision which was accepted by the Government.
The collaborative ventures which do, however, remain part of the new management's strategy to pursue over time will have as their object a further cementing of ICL's commercial position—for example, by opening up new and profitable markets at less cost and risk than going into them alone—and by better spreading the heavy research and development costs which are a feature of the computer industry. In particular, ICL will be looking for associations that complement its present product range and markets. It will no doubt wish to conduct a wide canvass of the opportunities available within the industry world-wide before entering into any commitments, and I am not, therefore, able to help the House with any firm indication of the outcome of this part of the company's strategy. But ICL has emphasised that any associations that it seeks will be based on safeguarding customer investment, both current and future, in the company's products.
The company's customer base is, of course, impressive. It has a value of over £2,000 million in more than 80 countries. The company is able to build on that with its most comprehensive and competitive range of products ever. The success of the range is demonstrated by the taking of more than 1,000 orders, in just over a year, for ICL's medium-range ME29 computer. There are many first-class products in the pipeline.
The Government are contributing important R and D support to those emerging products. Successive Governments have done so, but we are considering a range

of R and D proposals from ICL which could lead to an increase in future levels of R and D support, certainly to higher levels than were managed by the previous Government when they had responsibility for the company.
Successive Governments have supported the company through purchase of its equipment. We will continue to do that, in appropriate cases, in respect of the Government's own computer installations. I remind the House of the significant confidence that the Government demonstrated in the company's abilities when we decided to place with ICL the contract for the computerisation of the PAYE system—one of the largest computer projects ever undertaken.
During the period of the loan guarantee, the Government will keep a close eye on the company's development and I shall be meeting the management at regular intervals to discuss plans and prospects. But, even before the period of the loan guarantee, there was, of course, a close and continuing relationship between ICL and the Government.
As Minister for Industry and Information Technology, I frequently meet many major companies in the industry. I therefore find quite fallacious the claim that the sale of the NEB shareholding contributed to ICL's difficulties by weakening the contact between the Government and the company, and even more so that there could be any useful role for the NEB.
During the period of its shareholding, the NEB took no active role in ICL's management or in the development of its policy, and it contributed no funds to the company. The sale of the shareholding in no sense diminished ICL's standing or the funds available to it. I wish to re-emphasise that point, because several people have been saying that this was the cause of the company's troubles. In no possible way can that claim be made. In his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Putney explored the reason why ICL had got into trouble.
To conclude, therefore, I am again grateful to my hon. Friend and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) for the positive and forward-looking terms in which they raised the future in ICL tonight.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. Friend make certain that the plans of the management are made known to all the employees, so that they can participate in the reconstruction that he proposes?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes a most sensible suggestion. He indicates exactly the way in which all good managers work and should work. I shall draw this debate, and especially the point that my hon. Friend has just made, to the attention of the management.
I wish to emphasise that we on the Government Benches recognise that ICL's future cannot be based on the easy panacea of a return to the NEB, but only on a sure foundation of profitability and competitiveness in the market. The excellence of ICL's products already provides the latter.
The most important vote of confidence in ICL must be a vote by its customers. That is why I was so pleased to see two recent orders from Australia, and orders at home from important users such as Marks and Spencer's and the National Girobank. In the last few weeks, several of ICL's principal customers, whom I have met in visiting industry, totally unsolicited from me have made clear to me their faith in the future of the company.
The Government's loan guarantee support provides the means by which ICL can exploit its product range and get back on to a course of profitability. The Government have played their part. This a responsible way in which the Government can help ICL over what we all hope will be
488-490
a period of temporary difficulty, it recognises that ICLs best long-term interests lie in itself taking the determined measures to get back on to the course of success that it pursued so well and for so long.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.